Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

There Is No God


J.W.

Recommended Posts

Guest Valk0010

You can't randomly change the definition of God that is equivocation. You cant prove God was the initial cause, that is just one possibility, and an archaic one that is not supported by the scientific community.

 

You also fall into the trap of espousing a past infinite universe. That is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one and it is not even supportable by science as it would require a different set of physics in which the law of entropy would have had to change at some point. If entropy always existed as it is observed now, the universe would be in a state of heat death now and we wouldn't be having this conversation, but here we are.

 

LNC

Matter can't be destroyed only converted, so who says it has to have a beginning. Could not the universe be a "self caused" cause as dan dennett once put it.

 

This vids is not 100 percent relevant to this thread but(the relevant points in these that are stated better then I could state them), and they have some details that I think are relevant to what your saying LNC and I would like to hear your thoughts the relevant points

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJcENWQXnB8

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv8muJOYiGA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • J.W.

    55

  • Ouroboros

    34

  • Mriana

    29

  • LNC

    29

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The Big Bang was preceded by the Big Crunch. The Big Bang repeats itself like a heartbeat. It has been doing this forever. It compresses until an explosion and finally slows down and gets attracted back to the center to begin the Big Crunch again. There is nothing but mass and attraction. It has always existed.

 

There are a few problems with this theory. First, the universe is expanding and an increasing rate which would work against a Big Crunch occurring. Second, the entropy problem would mean that there would not be enough usable energy in the universe to create a successive Big Bang. For these reasons, along with the fact that an oscillating universe theory would require a completely different set of physics, this theory is all but defunct.

 

Philosophically, there are also other logical problems with a past eternal universe. For example, it would require an infinite amount of time to arrive at today, but then, because time continues to move, we know that we have not experienced an infinite amount of time and today should not be here (it is a terminus). The idea of an actually existing infinite causes all sorts of logical problems that are unresolved. So, it takes a great amount of blind faith to hold such a position.

 

LNC

 

Im going to start on this one because its the most fun [i will reply to the others for sure by tomorrow].

 

The universe could be expanding on a bell curve, and as the full force of the explosion declines-- mass will attract mass.

 

Entropy is often misunderstood and its primary purpose is for practical use not big picture theory. So what? I burn wood and the energy goes from wood to ash and does not retain the same amount of energy. The important part is that nothing was truly destroyed [it was only seperated]. All of the mass, including every single atom, still does exist. That mass still carries the same gravity and or polarity. This means when the Big Crunch comes it will restore the same amount of energy because the energy is stored in the attraction of the mass and none of the mass has been lost.

 

I would also like to point out that there could be many little Big Bangs going on like a boiling pot. All the mass doesn't get collected into one corner. It pools into many areas and collects until detonation. This is why there are so many black holes. They are mini-big crunches amassing themselves [and eventually absorb eachother].

 

Time does not exist friend. It is an illusion. There is only now and movement. Time is a man made measurement of that movement using absolute concepts. We happen to use the earths rotation and laps around the sun. There is no "then" floating around somewhere. There is only now and movement, so there is no problem with time because it is only a concept-- it does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

 

 

 

Time does not exist friend. It is an illusion. There is only now and movement. Time is a man made measurement of that movement using absolute concepts. We happen to use the earths rotation and laps around the sun. There is no "then" floating around somewhere. There is only now and movement, so there is no problem with time because it is only a concept-- it does not exist.

 

So true! We seem to forget that about time. It's the year 2010 CE because a Roman decided when it was year 1 CE. He almost stuffed that up. Well he probably did stuff it up.

 

Let's face it, it's year 45 billion and something, if you want to think in years instead of lunar cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Time does not exist friend. It is an illusion. There is only now and movement. Time is a man made measurement of that movement using absolute concepts. We happen to use the earths rotation and laps around the sun. There is no "then" floating around somewhere. There is only now and movement, so there is no problem with time because it is only a concept-- it does not exist.

 

So true! We seem to forget that about time. It's the year 2010 CE because a Roman decided when it was year 1 CE. He almost stuffed that up. Well he probably did stuff it up.

 

Let's face it, it's year 45 billion and something, if you want to think in years instead of lunar cycles.

Not that I entirely accept the calculations for the age of the universe (which I think are mistaken and anthrocentric), but it's been 13.72 billion years since "the beginning." Talk about a Y2K problem with the number of decimal places!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Big Bang was preceded by the Big Crunch. The Big Bang repeats itself like a heartbeat. It has been doing this forever. It compresses until an explosion and finally slows down and gets attracted back to the center to begin the Big Crunch again. There is nothing but mass and attraction. It has always existed.

 

There are a few problems with this theory. First, the universe is expanding and an increasing rate which would work against a Big Crunch occurring. Second, the entropy problem would mean that there would not be enough usable energy in the universe to create a successive Big Bang. For these reasons, along with the fact that an oscillating universe theory would require a completely different set of physics, this theory is all but defunct.

I was thinking the same thing as you, but then I realized that a bell curve accelerates at the edge.

 

His argument is not that it's a inverted parabola, but a bell curve with the >1 slope tangents at the fringe. If the universe expansion/contraction would follow a bell curve, we would have an increasing rate of expansion at the moment. Until some force (perhaps dark matter will overcome dark energy at some point, no one really knows), and it starts to slow down, and then eventually contract. At the moment, no one can really say for sure if this is impossible or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matter can't be destroyed only converted, so who says it has to have a beginning.

Sorry to butt in here, but I hear this a lot and unfortunately it's wrong.

 

Matter CAN be destroyed. A nuclear explosion actually reduces matter. So does a nuclear reactor.

 

The "matter can't be destroyed" is a mantra from chemistry. You can't destroy matter through a pure (traditional) chemical process.

 

But you can through a nuclear process.

 

What can't be destroyed is energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matter can't be destroyed only converted, so who says it has to have a beginning.

Sorry to butt in here, but I hear this a lot and unfortunately it's wrong.

 

Matter CAN be destroyed. A nuclear explosion actually reduces matter. So does a nuclear reactor.

 

The "matter can't be destroyed" is a mantra from chemistry. You can't destroy matter through a pure (traditional) chemical process.

 

But you can through a nuclear process.

 

What can't be destroyed is energy.

Let's say that, since matter and energy are interchangeable, that "matter/energy" can't be created or destroyed. How's that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Time does not exist friend. It is an illusion. There is only now and movement. Time is a man made measurement of that movement using absolute concepts. We happen to use the earths rotation and laps around the sun. There is no "then" floating around somewhere. There is only now and movement, so there is no problem with time because it is only a concept-- it does not exist.

 

So true! We seem to forget that about time. It's the year 2010 CE because a Roman decided when it was year 1 CE. He almost stuffed that up. Well he probably did stuff it up.

 

Let's face it, it's year 45 billion and something, if you want to think in years instead of lunar cycles.

 

Yeah, it has a real practical value. We get so used to the concept of it that we often mistake it for real. But its not

 

TIme is only a measurement of movement against another movement. For example, how far can I walk during 1/24 of a rotation of the earth. Time itself is relative to the movement you are comparing [because its just an abstract concept]. It just used to track previous movement but that previous movement is not locked in space anywhere.

 

Time = Distance/Rate

 

 

Time is the relationship. Distance/Rate is the only thing "real". It is the movement.

 

It gets pretty trippy. Most people are so used to using the concept of time that it is a fully accepted artificial reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say that, since matter and energy are interchangeable, that "matter/energy" can't be created or destroyed. How's that?

Sorry. I disagree. :)

 

Matter is energy.

 

Light and radiation is energy, not matter.

 

Energy is not matter, like kinetic energy or gravity.

 

Energy existed before matter in the Big Bang. The expansion itself was energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are begging the question by assuming the end (survival and society) in your definition of morality. You need to do a little more work on this before jumping to that conclusion. You also seem to ignore the divorce statistics for our society as at least half of marriages end in divorce and the children are deprived of a two parent household in many of those situations. By that reasoning, it seems that the survival instinct is not as strong as the instinct to separate and break up families. Given the fact that 99% of species have gone extinct, why is ours any more special. Also, we can look at other species that don't have our moral structure that have survived without it, so it seems that having a moral code is not necessary for the survival of a species.

 

Im not assuming an end. Things need to survive to have a prolonged effect. The people who survive the longest will have the greatest effect. The people that do things that increase survival will survive the longest. Society helps survival. Certain actions help society and therefore survival. Certain actions are a detriment to society and therefore survival. This fits nicely with Darwin and was based off of Evolutionary psychology. It will work that way. Society will punish what is a detriment to society because society increases survival so we up hold society by natural selection.

 

 

Those countries that have left religion still have the foundation that Christianity brought to them and grounded within them, so that is not a good comparison. Better would be to look at societies that never had a Christian influence and those cultures die off regularly are kill each other off. Look to countries like Papua New Guinea (the parts that have not yet had a Christian influence) or parts of the African continent for examples.

 

 

It is a gross exaggeration to credit Christianity for all civility. Society was around before Christianity [Pharaoh let my people go]. Society can not exist without some form of civility even if it looks different than today. It has to be beneficial to survival or it would just die off.

 

You are trying to derive an ought (how we should act), from an is (survival) and it cannot be done. Who says that the person who murders his neighbor to take his food and shelter for the survival of his family is wrong? You also have used an artificial term that only date back a few centuries (society) and who defines what is or isn't society. Couldn't the man call his family his society and murder his neighbor for the survival of his society? Another mistake that you make is to assume that certain specific actions are either advantageous or disadvantageous to survival. We don't know and cannot predict what actions today will be either helpful or harmful to the long-term survival of society. Just a few ideas to chew on.

 

LNC

 

I am more describing a cause and effect. I am not professing what is right. Im saying what works. Christianity is concerned with "what is right". Im talking about what increases survival.

 

On marriage. The average relationship is 4 years. That is long enough for the child to be old enough for the woman to be self reliant. I would go one step furtherer and say most breakups happen at 4-5 years due to an evolutionary drive. The couple splits to procreate with different genes to offset the possibility that their partners genes are unknowingly defective. So the person is wired to leave at the right time [when their child is old enough to be taken care of by one parent] and repeats the pattern has an advantage in finding good genes. That is just evolution though. Society has an effect because the kid with the most stable family life will have an advantage. So you see.. it is influenced by two seperate things society and survival. They are related but different. Society evolves for the stability of society, and people evolve for survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say that, since matter and energy are interchangeable, that "matter/energy" can't be created or destroyed. How's that?

Sorry. I disagree. :)

 

Matter is energy.

 

Light and radiation is energy, not matter.

 

Energy is not matter, like kinetic energy or gravity.

 

Energy existed before matter in the Big Bang. The expansion itself was energy.

 

You can "destroy an atom" meaning the organized functioning set of protons, neutrons, and electrons--- but you can NOT destroy the "particles" that make that atom. I am certain when testing equipment is developed further that this will be shown. Those protons, neutrons, and electrons will resurrect at some point into a new atom. In fact atoms swap electrons already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't randomly change the definition of God that is equivocation. You cant prove God was the initial cause, that is just one possibility, and an archaic one that is not supported by the scientific community.

 

You also fall into the trap of espousing a past infinite universe. That is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one and it is not even supportable by science as it would require a different set of physics in which the law of entropy would have had to change at some point. If entropy always existed as it is observed now, the universe would be in a state of heat death now and we wouldn't be having this conversation, but here we are.

 

LNC

 

There is nothing metaphysical about Hypotheses. An educated and informed guess that ties into , compliments, and is supported by science is vastly superior to religious doctrine. Science doesn't really say that the universe comes from nothing.

 

As explained earlier. Entropy is not a law that applies on the scale of the universe. It only applies when you are talking about a particular fuel. Burning coal, for example, is going from the high energy state to low, but--- Coal is just stored solar energy from dead plant matter, and solar energy is renewable because it ultimately comes from the attraction of matter which is an innate property of matter [particles], and those particles have always been. They may have not always been organized into the fashion to see today, but they have always existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can "destroy an atom" meaning the organized functioning set of protons, neutrons, and electrons--- but you can NOT destroy the "particles" that make that atom.

I disagree.

 

Sorry if I have to use Wikipedia as source, but here is a part from the article about Conservation of Energy:

The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.

 

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that energy and mass are the same thing, and that neither one appears without the other. Thus in closed systems, both mass and energy are conserved separately, just as was understood in pre-relativistic physics. The new feature of relativistic physics is that "matter" particles (such as those constituting atoms) could be converted to non-matter forms of energy, such as light; or kinetic and potential energy (example: heat). However, this conversion does not affect the total mass of systems, since the latter forms of non-matter energy still retain their mass through any such conversion.[1]

In other words, matter can be destroyed, but not energy or mass.

 

I am certain when testing equipment is developed further that this will be shown. Those protons, neutrons, and electrons will resurrect at some point into a new atom. In fact atoms swap electrons already.

Modern physics recognize the existence of anti-matter. If one anti-proton collides with a proton, pure energy will result and the particles destroyed.

 

So to summarize:

 

Energy and mass CANNOT be destroyed.

 

Matter is just one form of energy and mass, so matter can be transformed (destroyed) to pure energy and mass.

 

Light has mass too, just FYI, but it's not matter.

 

You know, one theory about the future of the Universe is that it will keep on expanding to a point where the fabric of space is even breaking particles and quarks apart to pure, isolated energy. (IIRC)

 

Or take Big Bang (from Wiki again):

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 1037 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[31] After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.[32] Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle–antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.[33]

The quark-gluon plasma didn't exist before the rapid expansion at 10-37. The state before this was an isotropic high energy "blob." Not even matter could exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I have to use Wikipedia as source

 

eh, its the Lions Den.. I accept Wiki

 

The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.

 

I wouldn't argue with that. In fact, thank you for the law. A lot of times I find myself describing concepts without using the proper name.

 

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that energy and mass are the same thing

 

I used the term "particles" and "attraction". Perhaps I need to be more precise in my language

 

Energy and mass CANNOT be destroyed.

 

I agree. I think we are getting lost in some semantics, but I may have some details wrong. I think "energy" is just a result of "mass" and "attraction". For example, one chunk of mass is attracted to another chunk of mass, so they move towards each other-- and the movement is energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "energy" is just a result of "mass" and "attraction".

I see it the reversed way. I see matter as the result of energy and gravity (mass).

 

For example, one chunk of mass is attracted to another chunk of mass, so they move towards each other-- and the movement is energy.

An electron contains energy, even without being attracted to another particle. It's calculated from the resting-mass and then on Einstein's famous formula E=mc2.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

 

Anyway... I won't argue this anymore... carry on with whatever was discussed before I so rudely interrupted. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to derail here. But just food for thought-- not getting in the final word

 

The energy in that electron is harvested by making it move from [a positive to a negative] attraction.

:wicked: the military taught me electrical theory.

Actually it has a negative charge [carries a property of attraction (or repulsion if you are picky)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to derail here. But just food for thought-- not getting in the final word

 

The energy in that electron is harvested by making it move from [a positive to a negative] attraction.

:wicked: the military taught me electrical theory.

Actually it has a negative charge [carries a property of attraction (or repulsion if you are picky)]

This is my view, and I think it's mostly influenced by the different theories I've read, and I could have misunderstood things and such, but anywhooo:

 

The electron is actually a single quark. Quarks have spins, or put it this way, they are not just solid, stationary, quiet little balls, hanging in vacuum, no they're violently in constant motion. Not only is the quark in a some hyper-drive spin in several dimensions, but the electron/quark can't stay in one single place, it constantly moves around. In fact, it must move around. If you somehow manage to capture an electron and force it to a stand-still position, it will "jump" (tunnel) out into a different place where it can move freely. It is a ball of fury, continuously in motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to derail here. But just food for thought-- not getting in the final word

 

The energy in that electron is harvested by making it move from [a positive to a negative] attraction.

:wicked: the military taught me electrical theory.

Actually it has a negative charge [carries a property of attraction (or repulsion if you are picky)]

This is my view, and I think it's mostly influenced by the different theories I've read, and I could have misunderstood things and such, but anywhooo:

 

The electron is actually a single quark. Quarks have spins, or put it this way, they are not just solid, stationary, quiet little balls, hanging in vacuum, no they're violently in constant motion. Not only is the quark in a some hyper-drive spin in several dimensions, but the electron/quark can't stay in one single place, it constantly moves around. In fact, it must move around. If you somehow manage to capture an electron and force it to a stand-still position, it will "jump" (tunnel) out into a different place where it can move freely. It is a ball of fury, continuously in motion.

 

Yeah, I get lost in physics. Actually I have never taken physics-- It could be like that. I won't debate that

I also wanted to point out that-- it moves from negative [the things losing something] to positive [the thing gaining something]. I said it backwards with my happy fingers at light speed. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Matter can't be destroyed only converted, so who says it has to have a beginning.

Sorry to butt in here, but I hear this a lot and unfortunately it's wrong.

 

Matter CAN be destroyed. A nuclear explosion actually reduces matter. So does a nuclear reactor.

 

The "matter can't be destroyed" is a mantra from chemistry. You can't destroy matter through a pure (traditional) chemical process.

 

But you can through a nuclear process.

 

What can't be destroyed is energy.

Your right, and I was thinking energy when I said matter :Doh: I was thinking energy.

 

Double thank you hans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wanted to point out that-- it moves from negative [the things losing something] to positive [the thing gaining something]. I said it backwards with my happy fingers at light speed. :shrug:

At light speed? You should attach a generator to your happy fingers... you won't have to pay for electricity anymore. :HaHa:

 

 

Your right, and I was thinking energy when I said matter :Doh: I was thinking energy.

It's a very common mistake. And it's an honest one too. And I can tell you why.

 

If you take chemistry, they will tell you about the law of conservation of matter. It's a fundamental law of classical physics. The particles are constant, and they react with each other to form new compounds. Complex atomic structures can break apart and form new ones. But all the particles stay the same. So it's true in this context.

 

But Einstein, Bohm, Schrödinger, et al, changed it all. Nuclear science goes beyond chemistry, and the law doesn't apply anymore.

 

I also think that sometimes even textbooks sloppily use "mass" and "matter" interchangeable, which confuses the hell out of students who continue into theoretical physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say that, since matter and energy are interchangeable, that "matter/energy" can't be created or destroyed. How's that?

Sorry. I disagree. :)

 

Matter is energy.

 

Light and radiation is energy, not matter.

 

Energy is not matter, like kinetic energy or gravity.

 

Energy existed before matter in the Big Bang. The expansion itself was energy.

E=mc2

 

Mass and energy are interchangeable in at least some sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say that, since matter and energy are interchangeable, that "matter/energy" can't be created or destroyed. How's that?

Sorry. I disagree. :)

 

Matter is energy.

 

Light and radiation is energy, not matter.

 

Energy is not matter, like kinetic energy or gravity.

 

Energy existed before matter in the Big Bang. The expansion itself was energy.

E=mc2

 

Mass and energy are interchangeable in at least some sense.

 

Directly proportional to eachother- I think. I still think Mass is a physical something. My mind is stuck and stubborn on that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say that, since matter and energy are interchangeable, that "matter/energy" can't be created or destroyed. How's that?

Sorry. I disagree. :)

 

Matter is energy.

 

Light and radiation is energy, not matter.

 

Energy is not matter, like kinetic energy or gravity.

 

Energy existed before matter in the Big Bang. The expansion itself was energy.

E=mc2

 

Mass and energy are interchangeable in at least some sense.

 

Directly proportional to eachother- I think. I still think Mass is a physical something. My mind is stuck and stubborn on that

 

Well, Mass is a measure of a physical something. I don't think I'd call it a 'physical' something itself. It's like saying a quart or an inch is a physical something. Neither one is an actual thing, but just an abstract to describe a physical amount of something else. They are measurements, not things that exist on their own.

 

Energy and Matter are both physical somethings. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's been established that Matter is just another state of energy. It's energy condensed into a slow vibration that is trasmutable. Work in Quantum Physics over the past few decades seems to support this from what I've read on the subject.

 

I'm no expert on this, but as I understand it that's what quarks, leptons, and bozon are. Basically energy particles that form atomic particles and further combine to form different types of matter.

 

So, really matter and energy are the same type of thing, just in different states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.