What Atheists Believe

#126
#126
therealUT said:
Mega evidence and breakthroughs will occur, as history has proven. At one point, the minute particles and forces that led scientists to rest with "entropy" will be measurable and, most likely, their actions will then be predictable.
Click to expand...

I think this is as likely as the gun-Fu in the movie Equalibrium, simply by virtue of Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#127
#127
therealUT said:
No. I am saying that a law equals order. Anything following that law is, by definition, ordered. Even if it is "random". Like I said, it is a paradox. "This statement is a lie".



Mega evidence and breakthroughs will occur, as history has proven. At one point, the minute particles and forces that led scientists to rest with "entropy" will be measurable and, most likely, their actions will then be predictable.
Click to expand...

If the law is stating disorder, then disorder is ordered.

...ok. I can't decide if that is bastardization of logic or if it makes perfect sense.
 
#128
#128
rjd970 said:
According to thermodynamics you're correct, I meant the earth is a closed system. However, constant imput from the sun is the reason we have order. Not sure how you can disagree with that.

Thanks for the sanity check. :hi:
Click to expand...

I think we have order that still moves toward disorder, an that we expend a lot of energy to maintain a state of order that also maximizes disorder. Something about cellular size and fluid dynamics that I can't recall right now.

I think I'm just getting hung up on order as definitive rather than relative.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#130
#130
rjd970 said:
According to thermodynamics you're correct, I meant the earth is a closed system. However, constant imput from the sun is the reason we have order. Not sure how you can disagree with that.

Thanks for the sanity check. :hi:
Click to expand...

So, is our universe orderly or not? Serious question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#131
#131
rjd970 said:
I'll attempt to answer multiple posts.

First, the universe is perfectly random, which is to say, it isn't perfect.

How have you reached this conclusion?


The notion of God/Creator is an attempt to assign order to this notion. I really don't see how that can't be understood, and I really can't see how that is spiritual or metaphysical in the least. It is human, and a reasonable solution as to how the creator myths originated.

What you suggest is possible. Is it not also possible that people throughout time have tapped into something? All I'm saying is that writing this off simply as man's attempt to find order in randomness (which you contend is what the universe is composed of.

People used to consider the sun as a God, for goodness sake. Same as then, today the only thing missing is the scientific explanation of what is happening (beginnings of the universe, etc). If we are taking history as a model, I am putting my chips in the bin that says rational inquiry will be able to explain these "ultimate" type questions. To write this off as not possible, or even unlikely, is as short-sighted as the creationist pre-Darwin and constitutes a refusal to use history as an example when contemplating these mysteries.

I don't write this off as impossible (never have) - I do suggest that it is likewise short-sighted to say it not only is possible but is a prerequisite for things to exist.

Further, how is scientific inquiry not equally man's attempt to put order to all this supposed randomness. If it is truly random, this effort is folly as well since it is merely man's attempt to put order to the unorderable?

Second, I have posted this before. But we live in a supremely random and capricous universe. We reside in a galaxy that is located in a random location in the known universe, of which we can't comprehend the size or age of (if it even has an "age" or "size", we are, afterall, talking about the origin of time and space itself). On the edge of this galaxy is a common star in a common constellation of planets orbiting around it. On this planet, life can survive on some of its surface, some of the time. We as humans have not even lasted the blink of an eye for the total age of this tiny planet. And the whole thing is set to end in a violent instant when said random star dies out and explodes, if we aren't taken out by random asteroids, comets, etc.

Based on this complete randomness and man's insignificant role how can you be so assured that one way of thinking man has come up with is capable of explaining it all - that seems contradictory on its face.

...now to me (or any reasonable person), that is not in the least bit perfect and is nothing but a random occurance, which given the size of the universe is completely reasonable to happen by sheer chance, somewhere (and probably a lot other places as well). This conclusion is not a priori, it is calculated based on our place in the universe when put in perspective...and I find it infinitely more true than that of a prime mover or creator making or knowing this to happen the way it did. Look around, observe, put in perspective what and who we are. I think you will find Ockam beautifully applies when honest about your observation.

Again, I question the core assumption that all events are random.

On a different note, a Creator certainly could have started the whole process that ultimately resulted in the random occurrence that produce you or I. The existence of a Creator does not rely on it's ability to have preconceived RJD would exist now.

Do I wish a creator exists? Sure, it would make things much easier to explain (and argue, since arguments against can be waved off by declarations of how he must behave). However, the universe works just fine without that assumption.

I don't see the need for a Creator in the way you suggest but it makes sense to me that one does/did. Whether or not the universe works just fine without the assumption is irrelevant since it could work with or without one and work the same. At this point, we simply do not know and I find all these arguments unconvincing at establishing non-existence or putting all faith in scientific inquiries ultimate potential to explain all.

This is very worth the 6 minutes it takes to watch.

YouTube - The Known Universe by AMNH
Click to expand...



As I've stated many times. I'm not trying to prove any existence. It is something I cannot do. I am trying to explain where I see the weaknesses in the attacks based on the all seeing power of scientific inquiry.
 
#132
#132
Have to ask the alien life forms that have been on earth in the past and are currently observing us from the reaches of space.
 
#133
#133
volinbham said:
As I've stated many times. I'm not trying to prove any existence. It is something I cannot do. I am trying to explain where I see the weaknesses in the attacks based on the all seeing power of scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...

1st bold: Second Law of Thermodynamics

2nd bold: Science doesn't attempt to assign order, only probability of occurrence through observation. Highly amendable, and there are always statistical outliers, Ie: random.

Science, therefore, is explanation, not guidance. We could open up a whole can o worms over pre-destination and the like, based solely on the word guidance.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#134
#134
Tenacious D said:
So, is our universe orderly or not? Serious question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

According to realUT, probably. At this point at 10:30 pm, I don't know.

I do know that I am probably interchanging randomness and disorder, which aren't the same thing. Just like with random number generators where certain patterns will inevitably arise when the list gets long enough, the universe will show some order. So my answer is it is random, but ordered.
 
#135
#135
How's about we just able this for the night, Men? I've got hot pizza, cold soda, and a few books I'm about to crack open. Anyway, the important thing is that we have all proven a unique ability to think for ourselves and discuss meta issues that have little to no bearing upon how we live our life from one day to the next with civility, respect, and consideration for opposing, albeit wrong in each of our respective eyes, points of view.
 
#136
#136
therealUT said:
How's about we just able this for the night, Men? I've got hot pizza, cold soda, and a few books I'm about to crack open. Anyway, the important thing is that we have all proven a unique ability to think for ourselves and discuss meta issues that have little to no bearing upon how we live our life from one day to the next with civility, respect, and consideration for opposing, albeit wrong in each of our respective eyes, points of view.
Click to expand...

Who needs em with this wealth of info floatin around.
 
#138
#138
VBH, I honestly mean this with all due respect, and you know I enjoy our discussions.

But your belief in the possbility of a creator is so watered down that I'm not so sure if somebody had a gun to your head and made you choose you would bet on there being one. Basically, you seem to be saying anything is possible. I agree, to a point (see your point on humanity tapping into "something"). But all beliefs are not created equal. That simply isn't true.

Further, how is scientific inquiry not equally man's attempt to put order to all this supposed randomness. If it is truly random, this effort is folly as well since it is merely man's attempt to put order to the unorderable?
Click to expand...

See RealUT's "ordered disorder" interpretation of the second law. I don't believe in the least that the effort is folly. The explanation that under the right condition randomness happens is perfectly logical and fits in the scientific purview. I fail to see how that equates to a "creator belief in the effort to explain order" sense. The creator belief is basically throwing your chips on the table and cashing in.

How have you reached this conclusion?

Again, I question the core assumption that all events are random.
Click to expand...

Given our place in the universe, it fits perfectly with the assumption that it is random.

On a different note, a Creator certainly could have started the whole process that ultimately resulted in the random occurrence that produce you or I. The existence of a Creator does not rely on it's ability to have preconceived RJD would exist now.
Click to expand...

So starts the infinite loop of who/what created the creator that started the randomness. This is the fundamental flaw in a creator of the randomness argument.

I don't see the need for a Creator in the way you suggest but it makes sense to me that one does/did. Whether or not the universe works just fine without the assumption is irrelevant since it could work with or without one and work the same. At this point, we simply do not know and I find all these arguments unconvincing at establishing non-existence or putting all faith in scientific inquiries ultimate potential to explain all.
Click to expand...

See previous point. This is why I think if the universe works both ways, my view is more reasonable. Again, anything is possible, like you said. And again, all possibilities are not equal.

You really do make some solid points that challenge me. I enjoy it.
 
#139
#139
I'm out guys, will pick this up tomorrow if I get time. RealUT, VBH, TennD, float...thanks for the posts. Mad respect.
 
#142
#142
Tenacious D said:
So, is our universe orderly or not? Serious question.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The Universe tends toward disorder. Vast amounts of energy are required to counter this tendency.

If you take Big Bang, purely as an example, all things were highly disordered until energy expenditure via particle collision, or whatever, resulted in more order.

But the tendency is still to return to disorder, and maintaining the level of order seen, requires energy.

If you consider the reversal of the Big Bang, the Big Squeeze or Collapse, or whatever it is called, you can assert that, eventually, everything will collapse back into itself and disorder will again reign supreme.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#143
#143
fl0at said:
If you consider the reversal of the Big Bang, the Big Squeeze or Collapse, or whatever it is called, you can assert that, eventually, everything will collapse back into itself and disorder will again reign supreme.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the collapse and the super-density create another Big Bang, though?
 
#144
#144
rjd970 said:
I'm out guys, will pick this up tomorrow if I get time. RealUT, VBH, TennD, float...thanks for the posts. Mad respect.
Click to expand...

Yea, if the tornado doesn't blow me away tonight, I'll check in tomorrow. If it does, I'll try to send a sign. Make sure you check high and low, as the signal may be coming from below.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#145
#145
therealUT said:
Wouldn't the collapse and the super-density create another Big Bang, though?
Click to expand...

Not without energy, I would not think. A piece of coal can be super dense, but without pressure and energy, no diamond.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#146
#146
rjd970 said:
VBH, I honestly mean this with all due respect, and you know I enjoy our discussions.

But your belief in the possbility of a creator is so watered down that I'm not so sure if somebody had a gun to your head and made you choose you would bet on there being one. Basically, you seem to be saying anything is possible. I agree, to a point (see your point on humanity tapping into "something"). But all beliefs are not created equal. That simply isn't true.

I'll try to state it with gun to head: I believe that something put it all in place with purpose or intent

1) I don't know the intent
2) I don't know the form
3) I doubt it is a human like God that watches daily - that seems to be to limiting.
4) I think the common thread through the history of man and in particular some the phenomena that a connection to some universal power seem to tie into suggest to me that a Creator accounts for some forces that are beyond our current grasp. You completely discount this evidence so it appears any belief is on par but I don't discount this evidence and in fact view it as evidence that is explained by a Creator or intelligent design



See RealUT's "ordered disorder" interpretation of the second law. I don't believe in the least that the effort is folly. The explanation that under the right condition randomness happens is perfectly logical and fits in the scientific purview. I fail to see how that equates to a "creator belief in the effort to explain order" sense. The creator belief is basically throwing your chips on the table and cashing in.

Again, I don't subscribe to the belief in a Creator means you abandon scientific inquiry. The two are in no way mutually exclusive and scientific inquiry may be the pathway to understanding a Creator.

Reals point is interesting - if all is random then a law declaring how this randomness behaves is contradictory.

I certainly believe randomness can happen under the right conditions but that is fundamentally different than saying all is random.

Finally, the randomness we observe is ultimately part of a system. A Creator certainly could be responsible for that system



Given our place in the universe, it fits perfectly with the assumption that it is random.

All events are perfectly random? If so how could we ever predict any event? On the other hand if it is partially random or random sometimes then predictive models can work. If it is not always random then there must be some order.



So starts the infinite loop of who/what created the creator that started the randomness. This is the fundamental flaw in a creator of the randomness argument.

It is also a flaw of the Big Bang or other non-Creationist theories - what was there prior? How doe we know that the Big Bang was the beginning of anything if we cannot say what existed before hand?



See previous point. This is why I think if the universe works both ways, my view is more reasonable. Again, anything is possible, like you said. And again, all possibilities are not equal.

I think we are really down to two possibilities - intelligent design creator or not. I see the former as more likely; you the latter.

You really do make some solid points that challenge me. I enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Likewise RJD - and the same to the others in the thread.
 
#150
#150
IPorange said:
Let me get back to you later. It will take me digging stuff up and I have a few things due.
Click to expand...

If it can wait til tomorrow, we can thank each other. Work comes first. This is just mental mastur.....
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top