Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Mike375]

It didn't start from nothing but a huge ball of plasma

And of course...where did or how did the big plasma come about.

Exactly, one either has to accept that the universe has always been there or that god has, the former is more logical, what can't be proven at this moment is that the Universe has been in a state of perpetual flux for all time and that we may well be in its final fling, it's still more plausible than the bearded man dogma

To accept the universe as having always been there (without a god) defies all science which only leaves a god with God like abilities. On the other hand, to deny the existance of a god would introduce infinity to science which would mean you just about have to throw everything out. Does the universe have boundaries. If so what is on the othe side of the boundaries.

If the universe has been there forever then each of us is as close to the beginning as was the sun 5 billion years ago. For the univerese to extend to infinity means our position in the universe is the same as a gallaxy deemed to be 10 billion light years from us.

To accept some scientific declaration as an explanation requires a leap to faith that is beyond description and doubly so when history teaches us such theories or declarations are only temporary.

 

[Rich]

And of course...where did or how did the big plasma come about.

.

From the previous collapse of the galaxy

To accept the universe as having always been there (without a god) defies all science which only leaves a god with God like abilities.

Infinity is more comprehendable than the existance of a magic god

Does the universe have boundaries.

Nope, I've already pointed out infinity

For the univerese to extend to infinity means our position in the universe is the same as a gallaxy deemed to be 10 billion light years from us.

You'll have to expand the logic on that one

To accept some scientific declaration as an explanation requires a leap to faith that is beyond description

You mean like tv and radio were a century ago, like landing on the moon was 50yrs ago etc., etc

 

[Mike375]

From the previous collapse of the galaxy

This one has no end because it will always be ...what was before, where it come from....

Infinity is more comprehendable than the existance of a magic god

But the problem with infinity is the science breaks down. We have the ridiculous situation that if we tavel at close to the speed of light for 20 billion years our position in the universe has not changed. Same deal with time. If the universe ends tomorrow or in 10000000000000 billion years time in either case the age or duration of the universe has been the same.

Nope, I've already pointed out infinity

That puts you on the pro god side.

Quote:
For the univerese to extend to infinity means our position in the universe is the same as a gallaxy deemed to be 10 billion light years from us.

You'll have to expand the logic on that one

Because irrespective of whether you are on earth or a planet in some "distant" galaxy your distance with reference to the universe is the same.

Quote:
To accept some scientific declaration as an explanation requires a leap to faith that is beyond description

You mean like tv and radio were a century ago, like landing on the moon was 50yrs ago etc., etc

No more like different theories, Newton on gravity Vs Einstein. What the science of the world decreed as being the most powerful explosive before the atom was understood.

There are two things that we do know. Firstly, the gap between us and a chimp is a 1000 times and more greater than the chimp and lizard yet physically we are much closer. It is reasonable to assume that there are life forms above us and there is no reason to think that the exponential improvement would not continue. Thus it is logical to assume that there are beings or a being that relegates us to less than a virus and the capabilities of such a being or beings would be beyond our wildest imagination. Of course it is also obvious that such being or beings would have no interest in us and so religion and after life etc are not in the picture.

However, once we introduce a system that is infinite in size/distance and time then science is not in the picture. There is no logical extension of our sciences. Thus it requires a huge leap in faith.

 

[Rabbie]

There are two things that we do know. Firstly, the gap between us and a chimp is a 1000 times and more greater than the chimp and lizard yet physically we are much closer. It is reasonable to assume that there are life forms above us and there is no reason to think that the exponential improvement would not continue. Thus it is logical to assume that there are beings or a being that relegates us to less than a virus and the capabilities of such a being or beings would be beyond our wildest imagination. Of course it is also obvious that such being or beings would have no interest in us and so religion and after life etc are not in the picture.

This is a rather controversial statement. Richard Dawkins - an eminent Evolutionist and Professor at Oxford University - has stated that all mammals are more closely related to each other than to reptiles. We are closer to Chimpanzees than to any other mammal and have about 97% of our DNA in common.

 

[Mike375]

This is a rather controversial statement. Richard Dawkins - an eminent Evolutionist and Professor at Oxford University - has stated that all mammals are more closely related to each other than to reptiles. We are closer to Chimpanzees than to any other mammal and have about 97% of our DNA in common.

Exactly my point. Only a slight change produces an enormous difference in the results and it is exponential to the extreme.

I use to be a reptile keeper. In the brain power department if they are a 1 the chimp, dog etc would be lucky to make a 3 and we would be 10 million on the same scale yet physically the chimp is 97% of us.

Now someone might argue that my rating of a 3 for a chimp is not correct if a reptile is a 1. Great, we will give it a 1000, still a long way from 10 million.

So what is the life form like that compared to us is like us compared to a chimp. It would be amazing.

 

[Mike375]

PS

A question for you Rabbie.

We make a replica of the earth and for both earths all man made things are removed. machinery, farming you name it. We leave one earth to reptiles and one earth to chimps, gorillas and the other top end of the animals.

We come back for a vistit in 500 years time. What differences will we see. Perhaps some evidence that on the chimp's earth they used a stick to get ants and a rock to crack a nut or two. What other evidence would see that would demonstrate they are 97% of us and a million times in front of the reptile.

 

[ShaneMan]

then you should vote for my - as I would always give a clear message - ( well perhaps not)

taking Brians example a few steps further - lets look at J.C - i am sure that his desciples were true to his teaching - but it does become chinnese whispers after a while - people leave bits out - then the bible was written what say 200-300 years after JC death and we know that the authors were rather selective in what went in..
Womens role in the early church has been belittled - where as recent revolations in various tombs have changed the view on this Mary M - has been changed from being a ***** to being JC compainion .

in the end the bible has been bastardised by men and used as an excuse for all sorts of B. Sh*t arguement - ,
that does not mean all christians are idiots or male pigs - just that you cannot rely on the bible to any real depth as a true histroical document -

why are their only 5? gospels ?( I hope i got that right ) - why isn't there 12 or maybe 11 given the circumstances

4 Gospels. Also, the books (letters) that are contained in the New Testament are not anywhere near 200 to 300 years after Jesus Christ death. Everyone of the letters were written by the very men that walked and talked with Jesus Christ. I would find it hard to believe that these men could write their letters to various churches, after they were dead. Lastly, you have made statements as to what the Bible does contain, but in my opinion you have misquoted what it does say. Have you read it good enough to come up with these views yourself? A womans role, in Jewish customs of that era, was lower than a dog. The writings of the New Testament gave instructions to men to "love their wives as Christ loved the church." (see the New Testament for an example to what this could mean) Mary M. was a *****, until she met Jesus, then she became a disciple of His, so I guess both are true. I really don't want to dive into this conversation but could not help stepping in when it seems Jesus and the Bible get misrepresented. That's not to mean I'm asking anyone to believe what it says I'm just saying if your going to quote it, then let's at least have some accuracy.

 

[Rich]

Mary M. was a *****, until she met Jesus, then she became a disciple of His,

That's the modern day Catholic version of events though, isn't it?

 

[Rich]

We have the ridiculous situation that if we tavel at close to the speed of light for 20 billion years our position in the universe has not changed.

That's because the Universe is expanding at the same rate due to the big bang

 

[Mike375]

We have the ridiculous situation that if we tavel at close to the speed of light for 20 billion years our position in the universe has not changed.

That's because the Universe is expanding at the same rate due to the big bang

How can the universe be expanding if it is infinite?

If you take the position as you have and which I agree with that the universe is infinite and has always been there, then you are already dumping science. All science on the size of the universe, how it came to be and how long it has existed must suspend the idea of infinite size and infinite time.

On the other hand if if you take the position that the universe had a beginning and is finite then science also falls over.

 

[ajetrumpet]

HEY MIKE,

I've always considered this concept incredibly complicated. But, there is one fact that noone can deny, and it's been proved by the scientists. The speed of light.

I didn't believe all of the scientific crap until I understood that fact. It took me forever to figure out why light that was a long ways away exists in a different point in time. As in, a star that we can see that's 500 million light years away is obviously shining the way it was 500 million years ago, because the light has taken 500 million years to reach our eyes (hence, the star is 500 LY's away from us).

But, answer me this then (if the above is true):

If one of our telescopes can see a star that is 4 billion light years away, and scientists tell us that the universe is only 4.5 billion years old, why do the scientists tell us that we are looking at that star the way it was 4 billion years ago? If the universe is only 4.5 billion years old, and we are supposed to be looking at that star the way it was 4 billion years ago, it could not possibly be 4 billion light years away because the universe has been expanding during the past 4.5 billion years. If the big bang is true, that means that this star that is supposedly appearing to us as it was 4 billion years ago, should not be that far away, because in that point in time, the universe would only have been 500 million years old (.5 billion years old, that is), and obviously smaller than it is today (how much smaller? Nobody really knows exactly).

How about that logic? Prove that!

 

[Mike375]

Adam,

It gets much better than that.

Big Bang is 13 billion years ago but the width of the universe in light years is much bigger than 13 billion light years.

Not a bad article here, the first couple of paragraphs will do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

So the galaxies could expand from each other without the limitation of the speed of light being imposed.

But your close in galaxy at 4 billion light years raises another question. The fact that it can be observed means it is travelling slower than C, much slower at that distance. If it was >=C then the red shift would mean it could not be seen. Closer in galaxies are moving away slower and galaxies further out are moving faster. So, where did they come from. From what position could they be created so as to be going so slow. Did they miss the Big Bang boat. Was there another Big Bang on the back lot

As a side note the Big Bang is not a theory about how the universe started, it is all about that one trillionth of a second later and on. S Hawking said science can't go back further than that because all science ceases to exist.

 

[ajetrumpet]

Steven Hawking was great, wasn't he? He is certainly intelligent, but a little strange if you ask me.

I understand how I was wrong now...thanks for the article. Catches one's interest!

I have no idea how the idea of 'C' works though. What is it? Is it a speed? The speed of light? What's the red shift? I don't get it...

 

[Mike375]

The red shift is light's version of the Dopler Effect and sound waves.

The sound of car or train coming at very high speed and how the fequency changes as the car or train passes you and what you hear as it is leaving you.

The further out the galaxy the fasting it is moving which lengthens the wave length of the light so "red" starts to appear. If it was coming at us then blue would start to dominate.

The red shift which is credited to Hubble is the basis of the expanding universe and Big Bang. Hubble was the bloke that gave the correlation between receding velocity, distance and amount of red shift.

The more one tries to learn about this stuff the more a god with God like abilities becomes the default position. However, just as the scientists do, that position needs to be suspended if you want to keep learning about it.

 

[Rich]

How can the universe be expanding if it is infinite?

.

Because there's nothing to stop it growing, there is of course another dimension

 

[Mike375]

Because there's nothing to stop it growing, there is of course another dimension

If it is infinite and can grow then the definition of infinite needs to be changed.

Alternatively you have to redefine "universe" to mean something like the local area as billions of light years. That is the only way it can be done because in an infinite universe you can't reference your position againt the universe boundaries. Relative to the universe the earth and the gallaxy billions of light years from earth are both in the same position.

Thus....Because there's nothing to stop it growing, there is of course another dimension can only be discussed or analysed if the idea of an infinite universe is suspended.

 

[Rich]

If it is infinite and can grow then the definition of infinite needs to be changed.

Well ok then the known galaxy exists within a space that is infinite

you can't reference your position againt the universe boundaries.

There are no known boundaries

Relative to the universe the earth and the gallaxy billions of light years from earth are both in the same position.

That depends on where you look at it from

 

[Mike375]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike375
If it is infinite and can grow then the definition of infinite needs to be changed.

Well ok then the known galaxy exists within a space that is infinite

That is what science does, at least that is the current situation. There is no choice if study is to continue. It is in fact the same as IIF([Field]=0,Null,1/[Field]). The IIF does not change the fact that [Field]=0, it just says "look we can't play the game when everything is to be considered, thus to continue in the game we must pretent that [Field]= 0 does not exist. We know it exists but unfortunately we don't have God's mobile phone number

Quote:
you can't reference your position againt the universe boundaries.

There are no known boundaries

And hence everything has the same position when related to the universe itself.

That depends on where you look at it from

The view you have is not altered by your position. The view you have of the moon is determined by your position but the moon is not the universe. You can move closer to the moon or further away and you know that because it can be measured. But you can't change your position within the universe.

1/[Field] is much closer to this discussion than first appears. We can do different things to handle [Field]=0 so as to let us continue, but no matter how we do it in every case we have to ignore [Field]=0. You may do it in a way that is far better than me and your way might be deemed as the latest and best way......but you still need to ignore [Field]=0

And so it is with the universe. It is like travelling in a train and then the tracks stop. We then need to jump on the God bus if we want to go further. And contrary to what many people think the Vatican was one of the early strong supporters of Big Bang and for the simple reason Big Bang does one big thing.

It established that science agrees that the tracks come to a stop and the God bus needs to be boarded if one wishes to travel further and it also establised at what point we have to change from the train to the God bus.

Of course it is highly unlikely that the driver of the God bus has the long beard and white robes. And I still believe that most who claim to be atheist are not fully atheist. They are in relation to the Bible (and whichever else), the man with the beard etc.

But to be fully atheist a person needs to come up with an alternative to the God bus when the train tracks stop. And if they can then of course that will dpend on faith.

 

[Rabbie]

But to be fully atheist a person needs to come up with an alternative to the God bus when the train tracks stop. And if they can then of course that will dpend on faith.

I disagree. An atheist is some one who does not believe in the existence of any god. I am afraid a lot of people do not buy into your oft repeated premise that you consider because there must have been something before the big bang this in someway proves the existance of a supernatural being to start things off. Just because we cannot at present know what was before the "big bang" does not prove your premise.

 

[Mike375]

I am afraid a lot of people do not buy into your oft repeated premise that you consider because there must have been something before the big bang this in someway proves the existance of a supernatural being to start things off.

It is not about proof but rather the most reasonable option at present. Can you present any other option that is not supernatural.

Just because we cannot at present know what was before the "big bang" does not prove your premise.

Well what option do you select over supernatural?

If you completely rule out the supernatural I assume that is because you have an alternative suggestion.