Religion?

[Godmil]

Can't wait till tomorrow so I can catch up on and reply to the thread
On a plus side it's great that we haven't had any (serious) anti-evolution sentiments.

 

[zmikecuber]

Can't wait till tomorrow so I can catch up on and reply to the thread
On a plus side it's great that we haven't had any (serious) anti-evolution sentiments.

cant wait either! this stuff is actually REALLY fun. hahaha.

haha Im definitely NOT anti evolution. though Im not completely convinced that evolution is true, right now its the only plausible theory. Ive argued with creationalists actually... *facepalm* thats not fun. "THE BIBLE SAYS THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN SEVEN DAYS CUZ IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE IS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD AND IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME LOOK IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE THAT ITS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" great proof. its not even logical.

An absence of anything. Nil. Presumably this is what you agree on too. And before you say "BUT I MEAN THAT MY GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE OUT OF HIS GLORIOUS ESSENCE" or something like that, you've yet to demonstrate that your God exists, let alone is necessary. So it's just all fanciful words.

ok so can we agree that if there was at one point in time, nothing, an absence of EVERYTHING, there would still be nothing in existence. can we agree on this?

Nobody... try reading what I write.

I do read what you write. Do you read what I write?

Wow... Anti science much?

Im simply pointing out that if someone here disagrees with causality, there is no point in looking for the cause of anything. I didnt mean that statement to sound like my opinion. If there is no causality, there is no cause to look for the cause of anything.

It's only possible. It's no more probable than me claiming the universe was created 15 minutes ago, when I sneezed.

If there is an initial mover, is it not probable that this initial mover could be a free agent?

I never implied there wasn't a cause, I just argue for not jumping to, somewhat illogical, conclusions.

ok sorry if I misunderstood you.

Again, who knows what laws of physics, if any, were in motion at the origin of the universe. Just because when I prod something and it moves now, billions of years later, doesn't mean it did then in that singularity.

How did these "who knows what laws of physics" get put into motion to cause the origin of the universe? Was there an initial mover for these laws of physics to be put into motion?

Logical evidence isn't evidence. It's just fancy thoughts that lead somewhere. You need real, tangible evidence to base your premises off.

For example.

Premise one: All orange are purple,
Premise two: This is an orange,
Conclusion: This orange is purple.

Blatantly, this hypothetical orange isn't purple. However, I just proved it is logically. That's what happens when your premises are flawed, which yours are.

ok so if the only real evidence is tangible evidence, how can you prove that the only real evidence is tangible evidence? I mean how can you do that with supplying tangible evidence to prove to me that I must provide tangible evidence? You cant. You're going to have to use logic to convince me that logic is not sufficient evidence. But then you are contradicting yourself.

We would know nothing if we had no logic, and relied on tangible evidence for everything. Why do you logically believe that you must have tangible evidence?

Muesli, do you realize that most of your points you have made in this thread have been proof from logic?

Why dont you counter my logic with *tangible evidence* of why my logic and any logic cannot be considered "evidence"?

Many times logic is looked at as a crutch... but its not. lol. ;P It's awesome.

That's precisely my point... It's completely fruitless us arguing this. We're two blind people arguing what the colour blue looks like. The only difference is that I'm waiting to find out and you're making statements of truth when there's no way you can know.

we can know from logic. I've been trying to show that. logic ROCKS. maybe I havent been doing a very good job of that... this thread really isnt on the top of my priority list....

 

[Muesli]

ok so can we agree that if there was at one point in time, nothing, an absence of EVERYTHING, there would still be nothing in existence. can we agree on this?

Nope. There wasn’t a time. There wasn’t anything.

I do read what you write. Do you read what I write?

Yeah. I was merely pointing out that I wasn’t trying to prove anything, I was disproving what you were putting forward. If you read what I’d originally written again you’ll realise that I’m not questioning causality per se, I’m throwing everything we know about physics into question.

Im simply pointing out that if someone here disagrees with causality, there is no point in looking for the cause of anything. I didnt mean that statement to sound like my opinion. If there is no causality, there is no cause to look for the cause of anything.

I don’t disagree with causality. I disagree with you using in your argument it where we have no reason to think that it was even present.

If there is an initial mover, is it not probable that this initial mover could be a free agent?

It’s possible. Who’s to say what’s probable. We don’t know anything about the conditions of the pre/early universe so anybody can say anything and it could be plausible.

How did these "who knows what laws of physics" get put into motion to cause the origin of the universe? Was there an initial mover for these laws of physics to be put into motion?

You’re confusing the laws of physics for actual material things. They’re the way we have to describe the way the particles that exist interact with each other. There’s no reason to presume that an intelligent being got it all started.
This is essentially a version of the watchmaker argument from what I can gather. Take the Giant’s Causeway, for example. At first glance it seems designed. People looked for an intelligence and found none. Turns out it was just a volcanic event that caused it, completely natural. It made itself. If the particles exist and they react in some way then the laws that describe that interaction must follow.

ok so if the only real evidence is tangible evidence, how can you prove that the only real evidence is tangible evidence? I mean how can you do that with supplying tangible evidence to prove to me that I must provide tangible evidence? You cant. You're going to have to use logic to convince me that logic is not sufficient evidence. But then you are contradicting yourself.

We would know nothing if we had no logic, and relied on tangible evidence for everything. Why do you logically believe that you must have tangible evidence?

Muesli, do you realize that most of your points you have made in this thread have been proof from logic?

Why dont you counter my logic with *tangible evidence* of why my logic and any logic cannot be considered "evidence"?

Many times logic is looked at as a crutch... but its not. lol. ;P It's awesome.

What are you on about…
There are basic assumptions that we have to take for granted. For example, A = A = not B. But that’s it. Pretty much anything else comes from real evidence.
Logic can only go so far. Logically, why would something travelling faster than me have a slower passage of time compared to me? Logic is useful to a point, but when dealing with the real world it is no substitute.

 

[PandaCuber]

I would really like to be buddhist. I like their philosophy and way of life.

 

[Godmil]

Ive argued with creationalists actually...

Good man

 

[Julian]

I would really like to be buddhist. I like their philosophy and way of life.

So be a Buddhist? There's nothing stopping you...

 

[PandaCuber]

So be a Buddhist? There's nothing stopping you...

Yeah i know, but i would want to do extensive research before i make it my official religion. i would like to enter in knowing how it all works.

 

[Igora]

ok so if the only real evidence is tangible evidence, how can you prove that the only real evidence is tangible evidence? I mean how can you do that with supplying tangible evidence to prove to me that I must provide tangible evidence? You cant. You're going to have to use logic to convince me that logic is not sufficient evidence. But then you are contradicting yourself.

We would know nothing if we had no logic, and relied on tangible evidence for everything. Why do you logically believe that you must have tangible evidence?

Muesli, do you realize that most of your points you have made in this thread have been proof from logic?

Why dont you counter my logic with *tangible evidence* of why my logic and any logic cannot be considered "evidence"?

Many times logic is looked at as a crutch... but its not. lol. ;P It's awesome.



we can know from logic. I've been trying to show that. logic ROCKS. maybe I havent been doing a very good job of that... this thread really isnt on the top of my priority list....

Logic is essentially the mathematics of premises, and can have the same impacts on reality as mathematics can. However, once that "mathematics" is applied to reality, the premises need to be based in reality. Meaning one must use the "mathematics" of reality, physics. In other words, one must use premises based on reality, where these premises can be validated, or invalidated, through the use of science. Your argument of initial cause has premises based on macroscopic observations of interactions. However, these interactions break down on the microscopic level, leaving the premises of the "proof" unfounded, and any conclusions also unfounded.

 

[ZamHalen]

Anyone have any ideas on Buddhism as philosophy rather than a religion? Just curious.

 

[zmikecuber]

Nope. There wasn’t a time. There wasn’t anything.

ok right, so if there was nothing there would be nothing.

I don’t disagree with causality. I disagree with you using in your argument it where we have no reason to think that it was even present.

so youre saying causality isnt present everywhere? what basis do you have for saying this?

You’re confusing the laws of physics for actual material things. They’re the way we have to describe the way the particles that exist interact with each other. There’s no reason to presume that an intelligent being got it all started.
This is essentially a version of the watchmaker argument from what I can gather. Take the Giant’s Causeway, for example. At first glance it seems designed. People looked for an intelligence and found none. Turns out it was just a volcanic event that caused it, completely natural. It made itself. If the particles exist and they react in some way then the laws that describe that interaction must follow.

So the cause was completely natural. Yet if the cause was not there it would not be.

Im not saying the laws of physics are material things. Im saying that they exist in physical time and space only if you get what I mean.

There are basic assumptions that we have to take for granted. For example, A = A = not B. But that’s it. Pretty much anything else comes from real evidence.
Logic can only go so far. Logically, why would something travelling faster than me have a slower passage of time compared to me? Logic is useful to a point, but when dealing with the real world it is no substitute.

and your definition of real evidence is tangible evidence, correct? why? why is tangible evidence real evidence?

why do we have to take A=A for granted? According to your definition of real evidence, do we have any real evidence to believe that? Is it logical to believe that A=A?

Logic is useful to a point, but when dealing with the real world it is no substitute.

So you dont use logic when dealing with the real world?

Good man

creationalists arent even funny. >.< its terrible. no Im serious. even though I feel like you guys dont understand what Im trying to say which is my fault pretty much, creationalists DONT want to understand what Im saying, so they wont understand, and they can be completely illogical sometimes. gahk!!! but yeah... atheists give me a headache alot of the time (hey nothing personal here )... creationalists give me a concussion... ughk...

Logic is essentially the mathematics of premises, and can have the same impacts on reality as mathematics can. However, once that "mathematics" is applied to reality, the premises need to be based in reality. Meaning one must use the "mathematics" of reality, physics. In other words, one must use premises based on reality, where these premises can be validated, or invalidated, through the use of science. Your argument of initial cause has premises based on macroscopic observations of interactions. However, these interactions break down on the microscopic level, leaving the premises of the "proof" unfounded, and any conclusions also unfounded.

wait are you saying logic=mathematics=physics?

so theres no cause on the microscopic level? how can you prove that?

Anyone have any ideas on Buddhism as philosophy rather than a religion? Just curious.

yeah defining religion is hard.... is atheism a religion? or is it just the absence of religion? is buddhism a philosophy or a religion? haha so confusing

 

[Igora]

wait are you saying logic=mathematics=physics?

In essence, mathematics is an applied version of logic, and this logic of quantities, properties, and patterns is applied to reality by way of physics. But, this isn't to say that the mathematics that describe reality by way of physics is reality. For instance, looking on Newton's laws of motion, when we apply earth's gravity onto a ball traveling up into the air at 6m/s at the time of measuring, the mathematics says that in the time before we measured the ball the ball had a larger velocity and was lower in height. However, this doesn't mean to say that the ball had to have been lower in height with a larger velocity. To know whether the ball was or not means to explore the possibilities and see what possibility has evidence directly linked to the reality in which the mathematics describes (the ball was thrown by someone, as shown by: video of the event, concuring testimonial from various individuals, and fingerprints from the person). Now, the possibility does exist that the ball simply shot out from the earth, which had a new hole that was filled immediately, because a plastic barbie doll willed it to do so. However, this possibility has no evidence to support it, and thus is an unfounded claim. That being said, if evidence were to be found that that had occured, the validity of it should be reconsidered.

so theres no cause on the microscopic level?

This was brought up before on the particles popping in and out of existance without cause. This is not to say there is no cause on the microscopic level, but that not everything in reality has a cause.

how can you prove that?

It isn't proven in the sense of an absolute truth, nothing in reality can be, but all evidence points to there being no cause. And if there is one, it is indistinguishable from there not being one, and thus no reason to believe there is.

 

[Hershey]

or is it just the absence of religion?

Yes. Atheism is a very broad term, it just means you don't believe in god. There is not a set way of being an atheist, or an set of rules every atheist must abide by. However, you could get more specific and have groups such as the Secular Jews, Humanists, etc. or philosophies like Confucianism or maybe Buddhism (without the reincarnation stuff).

 

[zmikecuber]

In essence, mathematics is an applied version of logic, and this logic of quantities, properties, and patterns is applied to reality by way of physics. But, this isn't to say that the mathematics that describe reality by way of physics is reality. For instance, looking on Newton's laws of motion, when we apply earth's gravity onto a ball traveling up into the air at 6m/s at the time of measuring, the mathematics says that in the time before we measured the ball the ball had a larger velocity and was lower in height. However, this doesn't mean to say that the ball had to have been lower in height with a larger velocity. To know whether the ball was or not means to explore the possibilities and see what possibility has evidence directly linked to the reality in which the mathematics describes (the ball was thrown by someone, as shown by: video of the event, concuring testimonial from various individuals, and fingerprints from the person). Now, the possibility does exist that the ball simply shot out from the earth, which had a new hole that was filled immediately, because a plastic barbie doll willed it to do so. However, this possibility has no evidence to support it, and thus is an unfounded claim. That being said, if evidence were to be found that that had occured, the validity of it should be reconsidered.



This was brought up before on the particles popping in and out of existance without cause. This is not to say there is no cause on the microscopic level, but that not everything in reality has a cause.



It isn't proven in the sense of an absolute truth, nothing in reality can be, but all evidence points to there being no cause. And if there is one, it is indistinguishable from there not being one, and thus no reason to believe there is.

ok Im sorry I didnt really follow that whole first paragraph... I will reread it when I get a chance, I promise.

can somebody logically prove to me how on earth its possible for particles to jump in and out of existence with NO cause whatsoever?!? otherwise, this belief of "these particles pop in and out of existence for no cause and dont ask why" sounds very similar to many people's belief in God...

what evidence points to there being no cause for the universe? the particles popping in and out of existence you mean? or am I missing something...? (yeah Im probably missing something... I miss lots of things hehehe ;p)

 

[Tyjet66]

Well, I literally sat down and read through this whole thread and I enjoyed reading it. I can see the points each side has made and I'm not surprised to see no concession made.

I was born in a catholic family, at around the age of 5 I started using logic. My parents told me that magic isn't real, so I pieced together that videogame characters are fake, Santa is fake and so is God. I never considered myself an Atheist or of any religious view point until I was about 12. At that time I just considered the whole God thing to be a joke. Shortly after I turned 17, I started dating a girl who was Catholic, I tried to believe, I really did. I said my own prayers before falling asleep, I "talked" to god a few times during the day and I even tried viewing the Bible in terms other than just "lol". Alas, I couldn't lie to myself and now I am, and always will be an Atheist, everyone around me knows this as well.

I love talking about religion, why people believe, why I don't believe, etc. I don't push my views on it as long as others grant me the same respect. Generally speaking, religion discussions are a bad idea as people who have never questioned their beliefs and have a completely closed mind to any other possibility usually become hostile with their words.

As for that Catholic girl I was dating, we are still together, and we are still very much in love. We don't allow religion to come between us.

 

[PandaCuber]

Anyone have any ideas on Buddhism as philosophy rather than a religion? Just curious.

I think its a religion based on philosophy.

 

[Igora]

ok Im sorry I didnt really follow that whole first paragraph... I will reread it when I get a chance, I promise.

can somebody logically prove to me how on earth its possible for particles to jump in and out of existence with NO cause whatsoever?!? otherwise, this belief of "these particles pop in and out of existence for no cause and dont ask why" sounds very similar to many people's belief in God...)

Quantum Mechanics is based much on probabilities, including these particles, and there is a lot of evidence for them. For an in depth look see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle. It is not that there is no reason for its existance, its just that there is nothing that is directly, or indirectly, causing them to exist.

Also, no one said "don't ask why"

what evidence points to there being no cause for the universe? the particles popping in and out of existence you mean? or am I missing something...? (yeah Im probably missing something... I miss lots of things hehehe ;p)

It's not that there is evidence pointing to no cause of the universe, its just that we don't know, and there is no evidence pointing to any specific cause. The proof you cited that is based off of the necessity for initial cause is unfounded. Specifically because the premise is not entirely true in reality. It may seem intuitively true, but that is only because of our experiences on a day to day basis. Things we witness in day to day life have a cause and effect. However, once we dig further and further and find a counter example, it only means that not all things require a cause.

 

[zmikecuber]

Ok, I just have a question... which I feel havent been answered. if somebody can logically answer please?

However, once we dig further and further and find a counter example, it only means that not all things require a cause.

ok so how can there be an effect with no cause for that effect? and how can something with no mass exist? what proof is there that these particles have no cause whatsoever? (from what I got from the article, there is no physical/spatial cause that we know of)

It is not that there is no reason for its existance, its just that there is nothing that is directly, or indirectly, causing them to exist.

how can we say that for sure? I mean could these particles be possibly being caused from something in a different dimension? or from something outside of time/space?

 

[Kirjava]

is atheism a religion?

Calling atheism a religon is like saying not stamp collecting is a hobby.

 

[Specs112]

Calling atheism a religon is like saying not stamp collecting is a hobby.

I collect not-stamps all the time! I have boxes full of them!

 

[Godmil]

Ooh, it's a biggy:
(I was going to also jump in on some of the logical parts, but I'll save that for later... rest assured there are many logical fallacies being thrown about)

If QM are so illogical to our logical understanding which we should not throw out in our day to day lives, how can we logically prove them to be true? What's more important? Which comes first? Logic and philosophy or mathematics and science? How can we understand quantum mechanics if they seem so illogical? If we can't truly understand quantum mechanics, how do we know logically that we are right?

Easy explanation. Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical theory. There are a ton of equations, and collectively they perfectly account for interations on the quantum level. And in keeping with all good theories, they could be used to predict lots of unobserved phenomena, which (despite seeming impossible) was later demonstrated to be true. The maths is perfect and completely correlates to observable physical phenomena. The only problem is that understanding the maths (in a real world sense) is a total mind****. The way the quantum world works is unintuitive to the way we see the world around us. But that's our limitation. You're not alone in thinking it sounds too crazy to be true. Schrödinger thought the real world interpretations of his maths was ridiculous, so proposed his 'cat' thought experiment to show this... unfortunatly for him everyone else thought this was a brilliant explanation so it got adopted as one of the main ways of explaining the interpretation of QM Einstein also had big problems with the 'reality' of QM, he spent a long time trying to disprove the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM.. however he was shown to be wrong.

How can I or anybody know Quantum Mechanics to be true if I and nobody cannot ultimately understand them logically in our minds?

It's unintuitive, that doesn't mean it can't be understood. Anyone (of reasonable intelligence) can understand it.

I personally believe that in order for these particles to come into existence, they need a cause.

That's fine, you can have whatever personal belief you want. Though that doesn't mean that it needs to be actually true.

Oh, and in my Chemistry we are getting into quantum mechanics a little bit. its quite interesting.

Cool, I didn't think it would come up in chemistry (but then I never really did it).

Asking somebody to believe Quantum Mechanics without a logical explanation, and saying "there is no logical explanation" is illogical.

Good thing I'm not doing that then There is a logical explanation for QM, the maths is perfect, the way they related to real world events (the physics) is perfect. It's not illogical, it's just hard to understand intuitively.

There is no definite proof for the big-bang theory; please don't be dismissive.

That's true... in as far as we can say that nothing can be found to be perfectly true. Big-bang theory is just the best theory we have at the moment. And it is a very good one.

And particles simply 'popping in and out of existence' is not simple at all, and has as much scientific validation, as saying God created them.

Well that's true... you could say 'god did it' to absolutely everything. But if you're claiming to use reason then Occam's razor applies.. there is no reason to add supernatural premises to an event that can easily be explained through natural means.

The first and third are only observed in the surrounding area, most of the universe is presumed 'un-seen' Cosmic radiation proves nothing, but the observed patterns of the same (if not smaller) areas.

Oh, wait, you're claiming that the big bang theory isn't good? I'm afraid all the evidence backs it up, and no alternative can be thought of as being more likely. It would be unreasonable to suggest that it isn't the best understanding we have of what happened in the early days of the universe.

And about your claims that particles 'popping in out of existence' is a sound scientific principle?

Yes. Yes it is. Do you have a problem with it?

These particles MUST have a cause.

No, it's not the case that they must.

Unless you say that the particles are the uncaused cause of the universe.

There's no reason to jump to that - it was your argument that 'if an uncaused cause exists, then it must be the ultimate creator of the universe'.
But while you're at it, lets hypothesise that this is similar to how the universe was created. Instead of a single particle/anti-particle what if it was a huge number of particles/anti-paticles (they'd need to be balanced), though if it was a huge explosion the outward energy would need to be balanced, to fit the 'net energy of zero' conditions that virtual particles have. Well could the explosive outword energy be balanced... why yes it can, gravity acts as a negative energy... but if all the particles/anti-particles were balanced (this is called CP-Symmetry) then wouldn't they just cancel each other out straight away, leaving nothing? Yes... unless CP-Violations could occur in which particles could change from positive to negative (and vice versa) without breaking any physical laws - and hence leaving an unbalanced amount of particles (with which to comprise all the matter in the universe). Well, it just so happens that CP-violation is perfectly possible, and has been demonstrated. There is a theory in cosmology that during the big bang, you only needed one 10 billionth of the matter to undergo CP-violation to leave enough matter to form all the stars and stuff in our universe. It's a pretty interesting idea that the creation of the universe could be very much like how virtual particles appear.

Nothing can come from nothing.

Well, there is a very interesting concept in M-Theory (The more recent development in String Theory), that there could be a greater 11-dimentional universe in which our universe is just one of many that is popping up (just like how virtual particles pop up in our universe). However it's very much limited to theory at the moment. The fact is we can never know for certain what could be outside our universe, if we can even say that there is an 'ouside'. There are predictions that could add weight to string/M theory, however we need particles accelerators more powerful than the LHC to do the tests.