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.
@It is impossible from order to be brought about by chaos unless an external energy is applied in a controlled manner.
""Is it always possible to find order in a chaotic system?" Ramsey Theory, described in the relatively easy-going, equation-free lecture above (given as part of the Millennium Mathematics Project), offers a reasonable way of determining the minimum amount of structure in a given system."
"Basically, if you have some chaotic system, and you start dividing it up, you'll come up with an "interesting" structure. Something will eventually repeat or have some sort of form (order). "
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvwvw/is-it-always-possible-to-find-...
You just don't know what you are talking about.
Re: Reedemption - "I expected a better show on this site but y'all are just a bunch of sheeples."
Well, shit... *fanning away electrical smoke*... *cough-cough*... There goes ANOTHER Irony Meter headed to the scrap yard... *grumble*...
@reedemption: Are you trying to show the other children how smart you are. Do you mean the second law of thermodynamics. What do you imagine a "closed system is?" Have you ever seen one?
RE: "It's impossible for order to come from chaos?" Why do physics break down at Planck Time and how do we have all this order now? I have already cited the fact that order occurs in chaos all the time. You are not disagreeing with me. GO FIND A FUCKING PHYSICS SITE TO TRY AND SPREAD YOUR NONSENSE ON. ATHEISTS ARE PEOPLE THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN GODS.
DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT-YA, WHERE YOUR GOOD LORD SPLIT-YA ON THE WAY OUT OF THE BUILDING.
Tell me, in words that most people don't have to look up in the dictionary, how god has always existed.
See that big box on the left. I'm in that little spec, on the right. That's our big bang.
@Nyarlathotep
I actually meant entropy and not 2nd law of thermodynamics (which even though is connected with entropy is also violated). The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases over time. And by the Law of Entropy, i mean that: the total entropy in the universe increase and never decreases. In lay man's terms: the meaning is that given enough time, every mass and energy in the universe would have completely dispersed thruout the universe (a steady state with nothing localised in space).
"How does it prove infinite regression is impossible?", @Cognostic might ask
i. The least entropy theoretically possible is ZERO (implication: a starting point/origin that cannot be exceeded)
ii. Projecting into the future leads to a maximum entropy where no further change in state of the universe is possible
Why do you suggest that maximizing entropy prevents changes of the state?.
@reedemption: "How does it prove infinite regression is impossible?", @Cognostic might ask" NO!
You can no more prove infinite regression than you can prove a god. THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT. Physics breaks down at Planck Time. What do you not understand about that. You are living in a universe (A house) and you are trying to make inferences about what is outside the house by looking at things inside the house. STOP DOING THAT. We have no idea what the outside looks like.
NEXT: You have to understand that the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "CLOSED SYSTEM." How do you know the universe is a closed system? The cosmos may be a closed system from which the big bang emerged. Where does the cosmos come from? (Everything that exists outside our universe about which we know nothing.) Do higher dimensions exist? How in the hell would you know this shit and why would you assume the second law of thermodynamics applies to something you can not possibly understand. Why don't you go and get a degree in physics prior to talking such nonsense.
That's what Cog would say.
@Cog
That's my Cog! What do they not understand. First, you debate Atheism here, not physics, or cosmology, or biology, although it could help the discussion. Second, we are not physicists... so we may not be the most knowledgeable about it. Last, Atheism doesn't care about entropy.
@Cognostic: "You just don't know what you're talking about."
I certainly do know what i am talking about. I think you should invest in a little understanding in the application of Science rather than jumping to a conclusion bcos you read a paper which you don't know its practical application.
Take a compressed mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen, apply energy: what you obtain is an explosion (chaos). Of course, for this reaction, you will find order only within Isolated Oxygen, Hydrogen and water molecules BUT never between any pairs of the molecules involved. I am sure you know that in describing chaos, I do not discriminate it in its micro state but macro states. Chaos can never lead to ORDER. Same with in a case of nuclear fission: it would be robbery to conclude that the Ba141, Kr92 and neurons produced in the nuclear fission of U235 are order produced from chaos.
@reedemption: Stop being a dweeb. You can not possibly prove the second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe or the cosmos. And even if it did, it is not evidence for your God. Go play with some idiots in the sand box. You don't belong here with the big boys.
@Cognostic- "You are only asserting the impossibility of infinite regression..."
Except you have an opposing argument, i have used the law of entropy to show why an infinite regression of cause and reaction is impossible. Of course yes, there is a point of Origin of the Universe. That point is the "Uncaused First Cause"! I have avoided the use of the nomenclature "God" but it doesn't really change anything.
Note that: using your analogy, i have not tried to "infer what goes on outside of the house based on what is happening in the house". I have only pointed to the SOURCE as the origin specifying how, why, what or when the universe was made. My argument is very simple: the SOURCE is not a constant, else change in state of space wouldn't be possible. The source isn't just a form of energy: else it's either a constant or the law of entropy is violated. The SOURCE forced order out of the Big Bang disorder.
@reedemption
Once more a theist comes in here, and makes crazy assertions about physics. Assertions, that if taken to the land of academia and physics would result in a Nobel prize.
I do not see a Nobel, therefore the assertions are nonsense.
@Reed
Just a little food for thought here. Perhaps it might help you put things in proper perspective...
* I am NOT a scientist.
* I am NOT a physicist.
* I am NOT an astrophysicist.
* I am NOT a cosmologist.
* I am NOT a mathematician.
* I am NOT a biologist.
* I am NOT a chemist.
* I am NOT a geologist.
* I am NOT a historian.
* I am NOT a psychologist.
* I am NOT a sociologist.
What I AM is simply a former U.S. soldier and a retired law enforcement officer who lives a comfortable and happy life with my amazing wife. Oh, I also happen to be an atheist after finally being able to escape the bonds of my religious indoctrination within the last couple of years.
Now, speaking of my atheism, here is something that may interest you a bit. While I do have some amount of interest in those fields of study listed above, I am not anywhere near an expert in any of them in any way, shape, or form. For the most part, I have only a basic knowledge and a general understanding of many of those subjects, as they appeal to the "nerdy side" of my limited intellect. More importantly, however, (Pay attention, because this is the important part.) MY BEING AN ATHEIST IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY OF THOSE FIELDS OF STUDY. About the only thing any of those disciplines do is to help REINFORCE the reasons I do not believe in your god or any other gods.
So, that being said, I think it is great if you happen to have advanced studies and/or a degree in one or more of those fields. Fantastic. Good for you. I happen to enjoy learning about and discussing various things in some of those areas myself. What I find hilarious, however, is how you and other such theists come here to an ATHEIST site spouting all types of "advanced" science/physics/cosmology and such, and then try to claim some sort of victory for your god when most of us are unable to counter your psychobabble. It truly is amusing on many levels.
1. As I have already stated, my being an atheist is NOT dependant on science.
2. If you are trying to use science to convince me (and others) that your god is real, you have lost before you even started.
3. I have lost count of how many other theists have come through here telling us atheists that science CANNOT BE USED to prove god exists.
4. If your god is so very interested in his human pets knowing about cosmology, physics, biology, physiology and such, then perhaps he should have included some of those things in that dandy little "perfect book" he divinely inspired. (Hmmm... Then again, I suppose talking about clothing made of mixed fibers was more important.)
5. Isn't your using science to try to prove your god is real actually going AGAINST the whole concept of faith? Seems to me that is a bit blasphemous... *scratching chin*...
Basically, if you are trying to use science to prove your god into existence, then I suggest you join a nice Christian site somewhere. No doubt they will hang on every word you say. On here, however, I'm afraid you will find the gullibility factor of the members is way, way, way, WAY too low for your tastes. Nice try, though.... *thumbs up*...
@No one asserted the impossibility of infinite regression. Not on this side. The only person making assertions around here is you.
SOURCE? WHAT FUCKING SOURCE? ALL YOU ARE DOING IS SUBSTITUTING A "GOD OF THE GAPS" FOR A "SOURCE OF THE GAPS." YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE UTTER GARBAGE. GO PLAY ON A PHYSICS SITE.
@I have only pointed to the SOURCE as the origin specifying how, why, what or when the universe was made.
You don't get to assume the universe was made. Grow Up.
" the SOURCE is not a constant," What source? You can no nothing about a source. Nothing at all.
Just stop and go away.
Even if I gave you everything, you could not prove it was your god and not an intelligent alien race that lived outside of time and space that did the creating. You have not ruled out natural processes in any way.
Your arguments are trite, juvenile and senseless.
In this context, I don't know what order and chaos really mean (I mean I have a vague idea, but not enough to do anything with it). Could you try to define them and tell us their dimensions?
@Cognostic
I have proved to you that an infinite regression of cause and effect with respect to the universe CANNOT exist using just entropy. You can prove me wrong by faulting the underlying physics.
You are quick to admit that you don't know what is happening outside the house yet you are quick to conclude that nothing is outside the house: and this your conclusion is made by rules that work only within the house. Is this not the same joke you make about theists? Look up Genesis 1:1 for a theist's argument
@reedemption
"I have proved to you that an infinite regression of cause and effect with respect to the universe CANNOT exist using just entropy. You can prove me wrong by faulting the underlying physics."
So what? Even if what you postulate is correct, that does not prove a god. The proper conclusion is a result concerning physics. But once you have established that ( I can, but I am not going to waste my time checking if it is possible) you still have to plug in your god, and that act of inserting a god is without substance and proof.
Please enlighten me, even if entropy is as you claim how do you arrive at the god conclusion?
@Cognostic
You are quick to admit that you don't know what is happening outside the house yet you are quick to conclude that nothing is outside the house:
How thick are you: "YOU CAN NOT KNOW WHAT IS OUTSIDE THE HOUSE." "YOU CAN NOT COMPARE THAT WHICH IS INSIDE WITH THAT WHICH IS OUTSIDE." "ALL PHYSICS BREAKS DOWN."
Learn to fucking read.
@Cognostic
Science and natural law says you are 100% wrong, you are still arguing that you right. Your reasoning is blind and so are you (Blind in Atheism)
@Nyarlathotep, @David Killens et al, come help Cog out of the quick sand. Prove that the natural laws used by me against the view of almighty Cog is wrong.
Hahahahahah, no burden on me, lemme sip Chapman and watch.
Check out the new definition of ATHEISTS
Atheist: (noun)
1. People of "other possible possibilities" either it holds any ground or it doesn't (in science and reasoning). As long as it doesn't state the dreadful "Surely there is God,"... Hallelujah!
@Cognostic
Science and natural law says you are 100% wrong, you are still arguing that you right. Your reasoning is blind and so are you (Blind in Atheism)
@Nyarlathotep, @David Killens et al, come help Cog out of the quick sand. Prove that the natural laws used by me against the view of almighty Cog is wrong.
Hahahahahah, no burden on me, lemme sip Chapman and watch.
Check out the new definition of ATHEISTS
Atheist: (noun)
1. People of "other possible possibilities" either it holds any ground or it doesn't (in science and reasoning). As long as it doesn't state the dreadful "Surely there is God,"... Hallelujah!
@reedemption: " Your reasoning is blind and so are you (Blind in Atheism)"
SMARTEST FUCKING THING YOU HAVE SAID IN 4 PAGES OF COMPLETE BULLSHIT. Atheists do not assert that which they can not know. Yes, we are blind to your god and blind to your inane and unsubstantiated assertions. When you come up with some real evidence for the origin of the universe or your "first cause" bullshit, everyone will be able to see it, not just you. When you begin demonstrating your god with facts and evidence, not the god of the gaps bullshit, we will all be able to see it. Until then, the only one professing to see that which can not be seen is YOU.
1. People of "other possible possibilities" either it holds any ground or it doesn't (in science and reasoning). As long as it doesn't state the dreadful "Surely there is God _____________________,"... Hallelujah! ( Insert the words, "WITHOUT FACTS AND EVIDENCE!" and you are spot on target.
ARE YOU GETTING SMARTER? You almost understand. You should hang around here for a few more weeks. You might catch on.
@Cog Re: To Reed - "ARE YOU GETTING SMARTER? You almost understand. You should hang around here for a few more weeks. You might catch on."
Hmmm... Maybe he will.... Maybe... But I admit I am skeptical. Here's why...
Prominent astrophysics professor concluding a lecture: "...So, ladies and gentlemen, as I have demonstrated, you can see that some of the greatest minds in history have been working diligently over the past several decades to allow us to reasonably conclude (for the moment) our universe came into existence from a unimaginably hot dense source we term as a "singularity". Granted, we do not yet know how that singularity came into being or what there may have been prior to its expansion. However, scientists around the world are developing better technology and better methods of testing with each passing day in an effort to answer these elusive questions. Thank you for your time today."
(...*respectful applause from the crowd*...)
Reed (yelling over the applause): "GODDIDIT!!!"
Professor (looking puzzled and motioning for audience to stop clapping): "What was that, young man? I did not hear you clearly."
Reed: "I said Goddidit. It was God that was around prior to the Big Bang, and it was God that created the singularity and caused it to start expanding."
Professor (skeptical look on face): "Please, young man, tell us how you know these things."
Reed: "Simple, Professor. I read about it in a book that was written by desert nomads a couple of thousand years ago. And in that book, God clearly states those facts I have just presented. Well, not in those exact words, of course. You have to know how to interpret the book. But it is there, plain as day. Plus, I feel in my heart that it is true."
(...*shocked gasps and murmuring from audience*...)
Professor (totally stunned look): Oh... My... WORD! Egads, young man! Why, this changes EVERYTHING! What is this book of which you speak? This could be the biggest scientific breakthrough in recorded history! Imagine! All those decades... All the time, money, and resources spent on research and experiments... All WASTED for nothing! All we needed was just that one book to give us all the answers we have been desperately seeking!"
Yeah, Cog, with Reed seeming to have that type of mindset, I'm sure you understand my being just a tad pessimistic about his ability to "catch on."... *shrugging shoulders*...
@ TM
Bloody hell TM....you are getting even more polished in your quiet demolition work...even CC gave a smile and wave of the tail in acknowledgement of your authorship. Welcome to the craft sir....
@Tin - Just a puddle struggling in the ground and amazed at how the shape of the ground was made exactly for him. It is pathetic, I admit. Still, if he is beginning to recognize blindness in us, perhaps he can begin to see it in himself and stop making stupid assertions based on shit he knows nothing about.
When you discussed the Law of Entropy, I just assumed that was some weird name for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But then you said that is not what you meant; so now I don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you could link me something about this Law of Entropy.
Assuming your claim is valid exactly how does this remotely demonstrate any evidence for any deity, or anything supernatural?
@David Killens
The fact is that an infinite regression of cause and effect with respect to the creation of the universe alone does not prove God but it shows that something/someone outside this universe who is unbound by time, space, energy and mass initiated the change that led to the formation of the universe. Except the BB was controlled by this external force to the universe, the BB would have been an ordinary explosion which would result into chaos at best
RE: "Once more a theist comes in here and makes assertions"
Sorry, bub. There is no assertion. Just plain knowledge accessible to everyone. The implication of what you've always known as theory was just pointed out to you. Knowing you bozos on AR, you'd have torn me to shreds if you had a better counter opinion
@Reed Re: "Knowing you bozos on AR, you'd have torn me to shreds if you had a better counter opinion"
...*shaking head sadly*... Holy hell, dude, you really do not listen very well, do you? Again, you DO realize you are on an ATHEIST site, right? This is NOT a physics or cosmology site. Granted, I know "atheist" and "astrophysics" sound and look very similar, so honest mistake on your part if you accidently clicked on the wrong one. I'm sure we've all done it before... *turning to others and shaking head discretely*... So, with that in mind, I'll say again that I think it is wonderful that you have all this advanced knowledge about physics and cosmology and such. Way to go, champ. And it is awfully generous of you to take time out of you scholarly studies to grace us with your presence in a valiant effort to expand our puny little simpleton atheist minds. But it just seems like such a waste and shame. It breaks my heart that your vast stores of knowledge are drained to near depletion on these godless bozos around here, as you obviously have the intellect to achieve greatness in the scientific community. The Nobel Prize is yours for the taking! Don't allow this motley crew of narrow-minded heathen cretins to keep you mired in mediocracy! Unshackle the bonds of this site! Cut loose the dead-weight anchor of those pea-brained intellectual parasites here who are determined to siphon away your brilliance and transform you into a common dullard! WE ARE NOT WORTHY!... *anguished crying*... *tears flowing freely down face*...
Pages