Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Even hard vacuum has weirdass quantum flunctuations going on inside it. It never really stays perfectly still and empty.

I didn't say hard vacuum. I said perfect vacuum.

Er... that's the exact same thing. "Hard vacuum" is just a slightly colloquial term for a perfect vacuum. So yes, replace what I said with "perfect vacuum" instead of "hard vacuum"; I'm making the same point that even in a perfect vacuum, there is still stuff going on. If you don't consider that a perfect vacuum, then you have to accept that no perfect vacuum exists.

[Siquo]

Neruz just imagines nothing (even though it does not exist), thinks time and space are interchangeable (which they are not, they influence eachother, but you can't remove time and then just add another space, or vice-versa).

ARGH Really Neruz, where did you study physics? Because I'm going to hit your professor over the head with some really big books.

[Siquo]

Role-switch: Siquo goes into the offensive!

Logic dictates that unless something can be proved to exist, it does not.

No. No It Does Not. While you're at it, I'd like to hit your logic-professor in the head as well.
Proof works as follows, I'm going to presume that you at least know basic preposition logic notation, where A is proof of existence and B is the actual existence.
(A → B)
(If there is proof, then there is existence)
That is something TOTALLY different than
(~A → ~B)
(If there is no proof, then there is no existence)
You may Assume that rule, but logic certainly does not dictate that. If you assume it, then that is your choice alone and no, you may not hit other people over the head with made-up logical constructs.

The only thing you can infer from that is
(A → B) ↔ (~B → ~A)

Logic and Reason are intricately interrelated, Reason is most accurately defined as "a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event"

No, No It Is Not. "A reason" is, but "Reason" is the process or faculty that allows the generation of conclusions from assumptions or premises. Not that last one: Reason (and logic) gets you nowhere unless you assume something else first. Allow me to quote wikipedia for you:

The precise way in which reason differs from emotion, faith, and tradition  is controversial, because all three are considered to be both potentially rational, and in potential conflict with reason.

If you're trying to be the Defender of the Faith of Science, at least have the decency to learn what it is before spouting your nonsense.

NEXT!

[Sordid]

I saw Julius Caesar on a movie called Gladiator once.

I seriously doubt that.

[dreiche2]

On the 'nothing' argument: 'Nothing', like omnipotence, is just a concept in our head, it doesn't necessarily 'exist' as such.

Also, 'nothing' is a particular meaningless concept in that regard. Compare the two alternatives:

1. Somewhere there is a place where nothing exists.
2. There is no place where nothing exists.

These two alternatives are indistinguishable, and I mean logically, not empirically ('nothing' here referring to the concept of absolutely nothing, not even empty space).

well since the universe endlessly expands outward there has to be some point where nothing exists.

We had this discussion in the science/maths thread. The idea behind the big bang is that all space came into being simultaneously, and is now expanding in all directions simultaneously. There is no 'outwards'. That's why the background radiation is still there and coming from all directions at the same time. The radiation was everywhere to begin with.

Unless it's a sphere.

EDIT: Though, if all matter is attracted to eachother, wouldn't that mean there is something the universe is drifting apart towards?

No its expanding due to the Big Bang momentum.

The rate of expansion is actually increasing, and that is poorly understood. See: Dark Energy.

I saw Julius Caesar on a movie called Gladiator once.

I seriously doubt that.

He I actually missed that.

[Slayer]

Hi,
I see so many topics concerning atheism or proving that no god exists or reasons to be atheist or whatever...
I just don't get it. When I was young I was teached about Jesus and God and I believe in a God until today. I have had a experience that I'd describe as meeting God (it was not a near-death experience) but even without it I wouldn't be able to understand how you think you're alone in the universe. Everything is so perfect, there's a reason for everything and there are so many "coincidences", how's that? How did everything start?
I understand religion has been transformed in a non-sense thing these days, with people making religions to earn money or to have fun.
In my opinion religion should be the way to find the truth about all those questions. In this point of view, an atheist would be religious too.
So, how do you atheists, explain all these above?

I want to bring a constructive discussion, please don't discriminate atheists or religious people, just say your reasons and why. Thanks ;]

Science.

[Neruz]

Even hard vacuum has weirdass quantum flunctuations going on inside it. It never really stays perfectly still and empty.

I didn't say hard vacuum. I said perfect vacuum.

Er... that's the exact same thing. "Hard vacuum" is just a slightly colloquial term for a perfect vacuum. So yes, replace what I said with "perfect vacuum" instead of "hard vacuum"; I'm making the same point that even in a perfect vacuum, there is still stuff going on. If you don't consider that a perfect vacuum, then you have to accept that no perfect vacuum exists.

I'm pretty sure in my post that you quoted from i said we were dealing with theoreticals.

Seriously, try reading people's posts instead of just making shit up.

[Sordid]

I'm pretty sure in my post that you quoted from i said we were dealing with theoreticals.

Seriously, try reading people's posts instead of just making shit up.

Hold on right there. Theoreticals? Weren't you, like, trying to show that it actually exists? So what's your argument here, exactly? "I can make it up, therefore it exists?"

[Siquo]

Dreiche: "Nothing" is a very meaningful concept, just like zero is. Humans cannot think without duality, for every "absolute" there must be an "absolutely not".

Your logical sentences are based on different (I was going to say wrong but I'm not) assumptions.
"Exist" is mutually exclusive with nothing, nothing technically does not exist. And it does so not in space and not in time. If you want to take Omni as literal as possible, you'll need to include that as well. Which means that omni-presence means that you also not-exist.

Your science is good. I approve. 



Slayer, Science is not an answer to the questions of the OP; "How did everything start?"
Big Bang is not a correct answer: How did the Big Bang start? Science does not say.

[Neruz]

I'm pretty sure in my post that you quoted from i said we were dealing with theoreticals.

Seriously, try reading people's posts instead of just making shit up.

Hold on right there. Theoreticals? Weren't you, like, trying to show that it actually exists? So what's your argument here, exactly? "I can make it up, therefore it exists?"

I'll be honost, i'm not actually sure anymore. The constant arguing of semantics and wielding of logical fallacies has resulted in a rather effective Chewbacca Defense, and i've been skipping Siquo's posts for the last page or so and have still been effectively Chewbacca'd, which is more than a little scary.

[Cheeetar]

Pre-emptive wikipedia link.

[Siquo]

I'll be honost, i'm not actually sure anymore. The constant arguing of semantics and wielding of logical fallacies has resulted in a rather effective Chewbacca Defense, and i've been skipping Siquo's posts for the last page or so and have still been effectively Chewbacca'd, which is more than a little scary.

Oh cut it out. You have read my posts but are too small a man to acknowledge that your knowledge of science and logic is severely lacking. You are harming your "cause" more than you are helping. Come on, logical fallacies? You have shown you don't even know what logic IS, and use definitions you just made up yourself, how would you of all people recognise logical fallacies?

[dreiche2]

Dreiche: "Nothing" is a very meaningful concept, just like zero is.

It's a useful concept, but not meaningful outside of our head, so to say.

Humans cannot think without duality, for every "absolute" there must be an "absolutely not".

If you say so... but yeah, it's besides the point.

Your logical sentences are based on different (I was going to say wrong but I'm not) assumptions.
"Exist" is mutually exclusive with nothing, nothing technically does not exist.

That was my point. I was arguing that treating 'nothing' as if it were a thing is meaningless.

And it does so not in space and not in time.

See, you're doing it. I guess, because I can't actually say what you're trying to say here.

If you want to take Omni as literal as possible, you'll need to include that as well. Which means that omni-presence means that you also not-exist.

Uh what? Omnipresence just means being everywhere. Are you saying everywhere includes 'nothing', hence you exist in nothing and thus do not-exist? Because then again, you're treating 'nothing' as a thing or place. Which doesn't make sense.

Slayer, Science is not an answer to the questions of the OP; "How did everything start?"
Big Bang is not a correct answer: How did the Big Bang start? Science does not say.

Science does not know, but there are theories that imply a history beyond the big bang. Still, it might never be knowable, either empirically, or intrinsically, because the question as such might be meaningless. Not that religion would give you a non-arbitrary answer, either...

[Andir]

Unless it's a sphere.

EDIT: Though, if all matter is attracted to eachother, wouldn't that mean there is something the universe is drifting apart towards?

No its expanding due to the Big Bang momentum.

Or is it expanding to fill the vacuum left by a super massive interstellar event?  Michelson-Morley experiment (being performed utilizing light in our atmosphere to measure the existence of minuscule amounts of particle movement to determine if such particles exist in space to propagate light...)  They expected these tiny atomic particles floating around in space to effect a mass and atmosphere of Earth?  Sounds to me like they were using a speedometer on a Mack truck to determine the velocity of an mosquito hitting it's windscreen but you know, it's not currently measurable with light, so ... wait a second!

This is where I think Science may be going totally wrong.  They are looking for the existence of a finite point of creation.  (No wait, that was a religious "scientist" to whom Einstein disagreed with...)  And now the "Big Bang" is being used to trumpet the latest creationist movement in science.  My personal opinion on such an event is that Einstein (and many others) may have been/are right that the universe is infinite.  The "big bang" may just be a localized expansion of material, but there's no way to measure it since we can't see past the vacuum created when this localized event occurred until the event equalizes to that vacuum.

But, yeah... I fully understand that since we can't measure our universe and we can only really use observational science to try to figure it all out that that's all that we can see.  But placing your faith in this idea as universal truth is no better than believing in an omnipotent creator.  After all, scientists can wish they knew all the answers of creation and that somehow this universe is all that exists in this world.  They want so badly to think the answers are available today that they are willing to accept that we are special, [edit: silly contractions!]we're[/edit] number one(!) and there's obviously nothing just over the horizon.  Our universe is only as big as we can see and there be monsters just over the horizon... that's the edge of the Earth universe. 

[Areyar]

To answer the opening post:
We (atheists/science) don't know (yet).
That some people cannot live with questions without an instant answer is their problem. They can make shit up if it makes them feel better, but I draw the line at forcing those halfbaked 'answers' on others (and suppressing science).
Now, I understand this is the same sentiment creationists (etc) feel when their kids are exposed to biology class, but the weight of evidence is piled high on the side of science. Besides that, the scientific method does not claim absolute truth.

[rant]
If you want to stop your kids from losing belief in Santa, the god of presents, then you will need to isolate them from other children because it is them that tell them He does not exist and make them reassess the evidence and magical claims. Also you will need to teach them the 'truth' more often than a single month in the year, lets say on a weekly basis. A daily reminder of Santa's existence, say by prayer, also helps with indoctrination.
[/rant]

edit:
Current scientific cosmological theories vary from prozaic to phantastic, I just cannot bring myself to believe any one of them as being most likely. One even asserted, that outside our observational bubble would be mirror images because we can never know what is in them (if the universe keeps expanding eternally).
This sounds to me like a religious reasoning: It is unknowable, ergo Deus est.