Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Based on what objective evidence? I could it Sponge Bob, and as theists do simply assert without evidence that Sponge Bob has the necessary characteristics to exist outside space and time and create universes.
Do you know believe the universe is as likely to have been created by Sponge Bob as a deity?
Or is this argument from ignorance fallacy going to be propped up with the usual theistic special pleading fallacy?
Do you think a first cause argument you can demonstrate no objective evidence for, beyond not knowing what happened prior to the big bang, and which might as effectively argue for Zeus as for Jesus as that cause, is going to seem compelling to a forum of atheists?
You do us a disservice sir...
Andrewcgs, you keep saying the big bang came from nothing. Science has proven that that is wrong. There existed much before the big bang. Only Our universe as we know it started after the big bang. You don't seem to understand physics or even astronomical history.
1) The big bang is a physical phenomenon that can be measured and studied.
2) The god concept is a manmade concept that came from pure imagination.
They have nothing in common.
Something can come from nothing as Stephen hawking has proven. He was explaining physical things, not irrational ideas, myths or folklore.
You are trying very hard to give the god concept credibility that it doesn't warrant.
If we applied the same discipline of study to god as we have for the big bang, the god concept would soundly be rejected.
You are what psychologist call, "justifying." Therefore you are an apologist. Someone that states something that is clearly not a fact but revises the facts to justify their argument.
mykcob4 -
1. The idea that the god concept is man made is your opinion (to which you are entitled), but is not a statement which can be objectively demonstrated.
2. Dr. Hawking did not prove that "something can come from nothing".
3. Your definition of an apologist does not fit the commonly accepted definition of that word in the known English language. An apologist is not "someone who states something that is clearly not fact", but someone who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something.
Lastly, if we are to use such nebulous speculations in quantum theory to justify the annulment of known physical laws, then all debate on existence becomes a "free-for-all" in which known, established accepted science is replaced with speculation. If we accept that something can indeed come from nothing and base our argument on such rationale, then there is no reason why we cannot in the same breath accept the existence of god, who's existence also cannot be proven by accepted scientific method. Science should not be made to "change with the wind" of convenience to justify any presupposition. Science should inform our conclusions, through rational observation of quantifiable and reproducible evidence rather than allowing our preconceived notions to alter science, no matter how convenient.
Bullshit in 'Origin of the Universe' Hawkings DOES prove something can come from nothing.
God is what cannot be proven.
An apologist is someone that intentionally alters facts to suit his argument or belief. Yes, it usually to defend their belief but it is still just lying.
I know that you want very much that Andrewc**'s claim to be accepted, but it is just horseshit.
There is no prove whatsoever of a god. There is proof of the big bang.
The big bang is the onset of our known universe and came from something that we don't know yet. Possibly from something that will cause mathematics and physics to be rewritten.
God as far as anyone can prove is purely an idea from humankind. There is no proof of a god, physical or otherwise.
So don't even TRY to lecture me. You are an apologist sir.
mykcob4
I'm not sure that beginning every response with "Bullshit" is an effective means of discourse.
1. However, as to Hawking having "proved" that something can come from nothing - there is a standard in the field of science. It is called peer review. His controversial position has attracted an avalanche of strong criticism from renowned cosmologists, mathematicians and philosophers of science. As such, his speculations are not accepted science by any standard.
If, as you say, it is necessary to rewrite mathematics and physics in order to support your theory that something came from nothing, then perhaps we should abandon the theory based strictly on your confession of that one fact alone.
2. Your continued insistence on altering the English language's definition of "apologist" does not make it so. Your claim stands in defiance of all accepted definitions. Ironically, the very fact that you continue to repeat the falsehood that "An apologist is someone that intentionally alters facts to suit his argument or belief" makes you (by your own definition) an apologist.
3. The existence of a big bang does not necessitate the nonexistence of God.
4. As to your objection to my trying to lecture you, I will do no such thing, as it would be futile.
I will however point out your unsubstantiated speculations, and the disregard for well established scientific truths on your part, lest others, who are as yet unaware of your your aversion to facts should be unwittingly led astray by such.
I said bullshit because what you said IS bullshit. BTW the peer review of Hawking findings was a resounding support by the Uk national academy of science. You know, the society chaired by Sir Isaac Newton.
The rewrite of math and physics is not to support MY theory as it isn't my theory at all. Periodically math and science are revised as discoveries are made. The invention of zero for one. I am not altering the English language goofball. Apologist has more than just one meaning. You cherry picked what you wanted and left out the rest. Typical christian practice, even with their own book of myths.
As for the rest of your nonsense, I'll just ignore it. It isn't worth the trouble to address immature rubbish.
Yes, Hawking did get support from the UK National Academy, but there are also many scientists and scientific societies from whom his theory continues to receive much criticism.
As to the National Academy's former chairman Sir Isaac Newton himself, his position on the matter was made quite clear when he stated:
"Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.…It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy."
Best Wishes
Isaac Newton? Really? 1) At the time any belief, not christian was ILLEGAL during Newton's time. 2) Much more has been discovered since Newton's time. So you read a quote by Newton where he states "god." Good for you, although that proves nothing. What a sophomoric attempt to gain credibility.
Mykcob4
It was you who mentioned Newton first, so I assume you respected the man and his views. I merely agreed that his name does indeed carry weight, as does his science, and the conclusions he has drawn therefrom.
You dismissed my Newtonian quote by suggesting that it merely represents some rare occasion on which he uttered the word "God", and therefore can be casually dismissed as not representing the man accurately. Once again ,this is, as you are likely aware, utterly false.
Fact: Newton spent more time on theology than on science. In fact, he wrote about 1.2 million words just on Biblical concepts.
Fact: He payed from his own pocked for the distribution of Bibles among the poor.
Fact: One of Newton's joys was to serve on a commission to build fifty Christian churches in London.
Fact: Newton was a man of deep Christian convictions, and those convictions came not from any alleged forcing from society (for Newton was a man above such coercion), but rather from science, since Newton himself confessed that the more he learned about the universe through scientific observation, the more convinced he was about the existence of a Divine Creator.
As such, once again, your attempts at twisting truth in order to prove yourself right are consistently proven wrong by hard facts.
As a result of your proven track record, I will no longer be responding to your captious comments as truth appears to do you little service. Best of Luck.
P.S. I must say, mykcob4, that as someone who has held literally thousands of hours of intellectual conversations with atheists, (most of them pleasant) I can say unreservedly that your approach, manner, and rhetoric is a discredit to the cause of atheism. Atheist Republic would be far more effective in it's mission and in it's ability to persuade given your absence.
Nice insult but I doubt that you are truthful abut your interactions.
1) I never said or even suggested that Newton was not a theist. I didn't twist any facts, although it is clear that you wished I had done so. You haven't brought ANY hard facts once that has proved me wrong on ANYTHING. In fact, YOU had to backtrack on your statements about Hawkings, his discoveries, and his scientific support for those discoveries.
Freeslave - "if we are to use such nebulous speculations in quantum theory to justify the annulment of known physical laws"
Uhh no. Please list the physical laws these violate/annul. OK, I should be more forthcoming: I already know they don't violate them, so good luck.
Thermodynamics would be a starting point.
I assume you mean the 2nd law. The 2nd law is statical only. It does not hold for single events and is violated regularly. Try again.
Nyarlathotep
Since a scientific debate on quantum theory at this level would be impractical, I would offer that Hawking's controversial position has attracted an avalanche of strong criticism from renowned cosmologists, mathematicians and philosophers of science. As such, his speculations are not accepted science by any standard. Peer review is a necessary part of the scientific process. As such his theory fails and must therefore be rejected unless and until it is accepted by the scientific community.
If these are the ends to which we must resort in order to support a theory, then perhaps it is best abandoned until it can be scientifically demonstrated. After all, science should inform our positions, rather than allowing our presuppositions to altar known science. Anything less smack suspiciously of religious zeal rather than objective reason, and makes one wonder if there isn't some other agenda driving the need to grasp for such wild speculations.
You told us these speculations violate (or annul, I'm assuming this means violate). That's a pretty concrete statement. I really don't think asking which one is violated is an unreasonable question. Seems pretty simple to me. As I eluded to before: I already know the answer: it doesn't violate any of them (of course this does not mean the speculation is correct). But since you told us it does violate them; I think it would be interesting to hear what you have to say on the matter.
Recently in this forum, I joking suggested that a political candidate should do a certain thing. In response Mykcob4 told me that this would violate the law. I didn't believe that, but he laid out the specific law and sure enough: he was right and I was wrong. This is what reasonable people do; that is all I'm asking you to do.
Nyarlathotep, you are right. That is indeed what reasonable people do.
By the way, sincere kudos to you for having the integrity to change your mind on the other issue you mentioned. Intellectual honesty combined with personal humility is indeed a rare commodity.
To be honest, I had hoped to avoid precisely this (only for time sake). However, I feel every honest question deserves an answer. But remember YOU asked! So, here we go:
Your question is predicated on the conjecture that thermodynamics do not apply to the Universe as a whole, and this is an argument that is often raised when the 2nd law is brought to bear. The crux of the question is whether our Universe can be considered an “isolated system” (i.e., a system in which mass and energy are not allowed to cross the system boundary) In the well-known thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, Van Wylen and Sonntag note concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “We of course do not know if the universe can be considered as an isolated system” (1985, p. 233).
Dr. Robert Alberty, author of Thermodynamics of Biochemical Reactions, is quoted as saying, “I do not agree that the universe is an isolated system in the thermodynamic sense”
One of the problems with claiming that the Universe is not isolated is that such an assertion presupposes the existence of physical sources outside of this Universe (e.g. multiple universes outside of our own). But, how can such a claim be made scientifically, since there is no verifiable evidence to support such a contention?
Even Hawking himself recognizes the idea to be merely theoretical (Shukman, 2010). As such, it is relegated to the realm of speculation, conjecture, assertion, but not scientific evidence. Dr. Gregory Benford writes “This ‘multiverse’ view represents the failure of our grand agenda and seems to me contrary to the prescribed simplicity of Occam’s Razor, solving our lack of understanding by multiplying unseen entities into infinity” (Benford, 2006, p. 226). Belief in the multiverse model is the equivalent of believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster just because we can imagine him. But such speculation is hardly science, and that is the basis of my point. Not only that it is not science, but that it flies in the face of accepted science, including the 2nd law.
We live in the only known Universe, and it had to come from somewhere. That is undisputed fact. If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of a pencil tip, then we must admit that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is, by definition, an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly and without exception. That is why reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements on this very subject in reputable textbooks. For example:
“Isolated system: Is the system which exchanges neither matter nor energy with the surroundings. For such a system, the matter and energy remain constant. There is no such perfectly isolated system, but our universe can be considered as an isolated system since by definition it does not have any surroundings” (Senapati, 2006, p. 64).
Or, consider this definition: “A spontaneous process in an isolated system increases the system’s entropy. Because the universe—our entire surroundings—is in contact with no other system, we say that irreversible processes increase the entropy of the universe” (Fishbane, 1996, p. 551).
We know that the laws of thermodynamics are true on Earth because nobody has ever been able to document an exception to them. Why does the same principle not hold when observing the rest of the Universe?
Here is a quote from the well-known Fundamentals of Thermodynamics: “The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved.... We can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence.” (Borgnakke and Sonntag, concerning the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics: 2009, p. 116-220)
The above, and many others like it should be sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there has never been any verifiable scientific evidence that the laws of thermodynamics have been violated at any time, in any place, or under any circumstances throughout the Universe. Any suggestion to the contrary is purely fanciful conjecture that it “could” happen. Yet, through it all, the laws still stand unscathed. But Hawking's theory "must" be the case if we are to formulate a theoretical construct in which "something came from nothing". And this is precisely why Hawking continues to get so much criticism from the scientific community, and why I continue to remain a skeptical of all such flights of unwarranted speculation. Hope this helps, and once again, thanks for your integrity!
The probability that the 2nd law will be violated is on the order of P(n) = n^(-1/2)|n=number of particles involved. So when n=4, the rate of violation is in the neighbourhood of 50%. This dog does not hunt.
The reason for this confusion is because classically the number of particles in a system is on the order of 10^23, leading to the probability of a violation being on the order of 0.0000000001%. This is why classically this probability is ignored, as it never happens. But presumably the early universe was very far from an idealized classical system.
You're quite right. Classically this problem is ignored, as it never happens. In order for it to be theoretically violate-able, even with speculations about early universe theories requires a great deal of presumption indeed. This fact however does not establish the viability of the theory.
Try again.
As for me however, such scientifically indemonstrable postulations require far too great a leap of faith for this skeptic. I fear I'll just have to stick with the hard science. Best of luck.
Freeslave -"This fact however does not establish the viability of the theory."
Right, but I'm not arguing that this speculation is correct. After all it is speculation! I understand why you are skeptical, hell I'm skeptical too. But you made a very concrete statement; that the speculation violates the laws of physics. It doesn't violate any known law. If we combine the facts that we probably live in a universe with 0 for all of its conserved values and that the laws of physics are reversible; it leaves the door open just enough to allow this kind of speculation to sneak in without creating a violation. Tomorrow when more laws are known (or the current ones are modified) maybe it will be a violation.
Freeslave, Is your name Jeff Miller? If not, it appears you have plagiarized him with the copy/paste above from
https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3704&...
CyberLN
I am not Jeff Miller. While my statements above quote various sources (for which citations are made), the statements themselves are mine (with the exception of duly cited material). The quotation of published scientific material is an accepted practice, and necessary in any such discourse. This does not constitute plagiarism. It is possible that Mr. Miller has also used similar source material in making his particular arguments, but the arguments made in my post are mine, and the sources are ones I have used for years in answering such questions. As there is very little that can be claimed as entirely original, I don't doubt that over time some of these arguments have overlapped, and as such can be found in multiple resources throughout the internet, since they have similar lines of reasoning and therefore of necessity lead to similar conclusions. Hope this helps, and best wishes.
In your post you say, "...whether our Universe can be considered an “isolated system” (i.e., a system in which mass and energy are not allowed to cross the system boundary) In the well-known thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, Van Wylen and Sonntag note concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “We of course do not know if the universe can be considered as an isolated system” (1985, p. 233)."
I do not see Mr. Miller cited for this. Did I miss it? Did Mr. Miller copy you?
Ouch. Yep it's plagiarized. I feel stupid. I like to think I'm good at catching these, and this one is obvious, but I totally missed it.
I had just put fresh batteries in my horseshit meter...
It is indeed possible that in the hundreds of pages of research material I have stored on my computer that I have indeed copied over a small section of Mr. Miller's work without having realized it in my response. My apologies for the oversight. Clearly I had extracted this from some of his work at some point in the past and overlooked it in my response and regret not having given him credit herein. Thanks for catching it.
However, in this particular venue, my intent was not to produce an original scholarly work. I did not do the science myself, nor are all the ideas original with me. Truth is, we are all product of that to which we have been exposed, and as such, I doubt I have a completely original idea in my head - we all stand on the shoulders of giants. My intent here was to furnish the information requested, regardless of the source. Again, my apologies for the oversight. Shout out to Mr. Miller. :) Peace!
I just don't buy It.
I don't by it either. It's like saying Mrs. Trump just used some of the same words as Mrs. Obama's speech.
It is indeed possible that in the hundreds of pages of research material I have stored on my computer that I have indeed copied over a small section of Mr. Miller's work without having realized it in my response. My apologies for the oversight. Clearly I had extracted this from some of his work at some point in the past and overlooked it in my response and regret not having given him credit herein. Thanks for catching it.
However, in this particular venue, my intent was not to produce an original scholarly work. I did not do the science myself, nor are all the ideas original with me. Truth is, we are all product of that to which we have been exposed, and as such, I doubt I have a completely original idea in my head - we all stand on the shoulders of giants. My intent here was to furnish the information requested, regardless of the source. Again, my apologies for the oversight. Shout out to Mr. Miller. :) Peace!
If something can come from nothing has been scientifically proven by Stephen hawkings then the concept of something always exiting has been scientifically proven as well through dark matter. dark matter can always exist it cannot be destroyed its also called the god particle and that was my original point is that both theorys are scientific and they have commonalitys that cannot be ignored which i point of agreements
That we stubbornly refuse to agree with each other i have seen it first hand by both side your indenial about this is you dont agree
@ Andrewcgs, how old are you?
Right now, this thread is just a pissing contents of "whose right". Whining about not being understood when you're not able to write complete sentences is only damaging your credibility.
If you are asked to validate your claims, just answer without acting like others are stupid for not understanding. Again, such behavior just damages your own credibility.
Pages