I saw it again today. Some atheist ranting about Christians who are thankful - to God - for the good that’s happened to them. She assumes that we, like atheists who in turn are like little children who can only conceive of a good life as defined by the lack of pain or hardship. She assumes that we, like atheists can only understand God’s love in the “good times” but see Him as evil in times of suffering. Ah ignorance. What are you going to do with it?
Here’s an example of how atheists think.
My plane is arriving home - finally. I’m tired. I’m hungry. It’s the dead of night and the rain is coming down in sheets. That would make me nervous enough but the bigger problem is this. The plane’s landing gear is only partially down. All the fuel that can be burned off is gone and we’re 2kms back on final approach. I think I can see the flashing lights of some of the emergency vehicles that are waiting for us. We’ve assumed the crash position.
It’s the hardest, bone crunching landing that I’ve ever experienced. Blood is pouring from my mouth. I find out later that my left leg is broken just above the ankle. We skid for what seems like forever. The last thing I remember is seeing the wing, right where my window and protective fuselage used to be, tear away. I’m soaked in fuel and exposed to the elements as we careen off the end of the runway and into, what I later learn to be, bush and wasteland. The next thing I know, a rescue crewman is lifting me out of my seat. There are screams and smoke and shouts of “Hurry - Hurry!” I’m lying in the rain beside a fire truck, about two hundred meters from the plane when it explodes. The screams of those still inside will remain with me for the rest of my life.
Four days later, two of us are being released from the hospital. There’s a small crowd outside and they’re clapping for us. News Reporters ask if they can interview us. All I have to say is, “I am so very thankful to the rescue crew for saving my life. I can’t say enough about how absolutely grateful I am to all those who risked their lives in order to save mine.”
I’m taken aback when someone from the crowd yells, “I’m an atheist and that gives me the right to say to your face, ‘How dare you say that you’re thankful to be alive when 57 other people died? How arrogant can you be? You think you’re somebody special? You think you’re better than those other people? Well I’m here to tell you that you’re not! So shut the fuck up!’”
Never one to back down from perceived injustice, I reply, “I may not be special, but the people who risked their lives in order to save mine certainly are.”
“Then why didn’t they save everyone’s life? My daughter died on that plane and I say the rescuers are nothing but cowardly scum.”
“Just because you’re angry at them doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be grateful.”
“Yes it does. Yes it does you arrogant . . .!”
I interrupt. “Why?” I ask, genuinely interested. “Why shouldn’t I thank someone who saved my life, even if he didn’t save someone else’s?”
Breaking into tears of rage, the man ends with, “Because he should have saved everybody or nobody that’s why.”
While the analogy is admittedly imperfect, the point is clear. There is not an atheist on the planet who does not share this character’s sentiment. One thing that atheists cannot tolerate is a God who is Sovereign; a God who will choose one and not another. They would rather pretend that God doesn’t exist than bow down to such a God. God however replies back to such atheist accusations with, “You can worship Me as Sovereign Lord and be saved, or you can reject My Lordship and die in your sins. Because you have rejected Me and want nothing to do with Me, I say to you, “Thy will be done.””
Unless God is "good" to everyone, then in the atheist mind, God isn’t good to anyone. As the saying goes, “Unbelief always comes from seeing oneself as good and God as evil.”
In the atheist mind it’s black or white, right or wrong, totally acceptable or totally unacceptable. It’s this rigid and repetitive, persistent and pervasive, black and white thinking that is the cause of atheist rants toward survivors who are thankful to God. It’s the survivor who bears the brunt of the atheist’s misdirected anger. The survivor is accused of being arrogant for being grateful.
Sometimes it hard to see why atheists deem logic and reason to be exclusively within their domain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Makarios said...
"It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer"
Only because no one is stupid enough to come forward and say, "Astrology does not exist." Leave it to atheists to deny the obvious.
==========
"to be certain about propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable—is both an intellectual and a moral failing."
Absolutely - so now would be a good time to give us the evidence that:
"The universe came from nothing by natural cause. There was nothing supernatural or from outside of nature to bring the universe into being."
I mean, that IS what you believe - right?
And you'd never believe anything without evidence - right?
Because that would be an intellectual failing - right?
July 5, 2009 1:26 AM
The Arab Advocate said...
Astronomy is a science. Astrology is nonsense. Would you care to give me any evidence that Jesus was actually born, crucified, and risen from the dead? FYI, I speak the language of Jesus, Aramaic, so if he returns in our lifetime I'll be happy to translate for you what he says. In the meantime don't appeal to a science and reason that you have categorically rejected. What hypocrisy!
July 5, 2009 2:24 AM
"Astronomy is a science. Astrology is nonsense."
I agree. Nevertheless, astrology still exists. Just like atheism is nonsense, yet we must still bear the burden of its existence.
==============
“Would you care to give me any evidence that Jesus was actually born, crucified, and risen from the dead?”
Yes, but I’d have to do it in a separate post because my comments section doesn’t allow for that much information.
============
“In the meantime don't appeal to a science and reason that you have categorically rejected.”
I don’t understand. What science do I reject? The whole point of those questions that you copied have to do with ATHEISTS rejecting what we know FROM science because it points to a Supernatural (outside of nature) Creator.
They would rather pretend that God doesn’t exist than bow down to such a God.
I don't believe your god exists. Not pretending.
Nice site you have.
Some other subjects of interest are: Postmodernism and Sovereignty.
Postmodernism, where atheists make up their own metanarratives from a human point of view in an attempt to justify all metanarratives; a pluralistic type deal, which leads to relativism (or what I call apathy), which then leads to humanism...and then to, what's that other word? Ah, yes, Statism. Just another word for communism. It's where man feels that he can rule however he wishes; he feels he has all-authority, he is sovereign...therefore, taking sovereignty away from his Creator, and thus, reserving the rights of life and death for himself.
We seen this tried in the USSR, China, and various other locations around the world.
Only one thing that it proves...atheism is dangerous when it controls education and the government.
You might look into it. The endless terminologies and the lengths to which atheists will go to try and justify so many ill-conceived agendas. I find it highly interesting how it works, though confirming and strengthening my faith in the Lord all the more.
Something that we need to expose for what it is, while we have the time.
God bless you! Keep up the good work!
While the analogy is admittedly imperfect, the point is clear. There is not an atheist on the planet who does not share this character’s sentiment.
I do not share this characters sentiment.
They would rather pretend that God doesn’t exist than bow down to such a God
I would bow to and worship God if I believed God existed.
In the atheist mind it’s black or white, right or wrong, totally acceptable or totally unacceptable.
My personal experiences disputes this. I find that it is, in general, those of a religous persuasion who believe in absolute morals. Examples such as Ray Comforts "good person test" support this.
Sometimes it hard to see why atheists deem logic and reason to be exclusively within their domain.
I do not. Francis Collins and Ken Miller are both extremely logical and reasonable individuals, and both are theists.
Makarios: I recommend you avoid paraphrasing what atheists believe, for two reasons.
First: You have demonstrated a clear tendancy towards severe misrepresentation of viewpoints alternative to your own. I make no judgment as to what these are a symptom of, but possible causes may be ignorance, dishonesty or in extreme cases a lack of empathy for others.
Second: Atheists are a group of individuals linked only by a single common thread: lack of belief in a deity. Absolute statements about "all atheists" will rarely be true.
Is there any evidence that any god exists? I'm not aware of any.
Lidstrom - None that you would accept.
Don't be so certain. I have much more of an open mind regarding the existence of gods than you do of there being no gods. Of that I am certain, based on your blog alone.
Then let's start with the universe itself.
Science shows that it couldn't have come about by natural means because there was nothing natural around at the Singularity.
Then we could move to physicists like Hawking who tell us that the odds of the universe coming into being by accident to be 1 chance in 10 ^ 1,230. When one considers that the whole universe contains "only" 10 ^ 80 sub atomic particles, that some pretty long odds.
If those odds give you pause, consider that each and every one of the 100 + finely tuned constants and quantitites that allow our universe to not just exist but to be a life supporting universe had to be in place prior to Planck time. Adding up those odds make 10 ^ 1,230 look small. In fact Roger Penrose said that our universe, a life supporting universe coming into being by accident is so improbable that it's like throwing a dart at our WHOLE universe and hitting the exact correct PROTON.
How are we doing so far?
Interesting...and that proves there is a God that will be upset if I do not accept Jesus Christ as my savior?
Lidstrom - I see you liked Catch 22 If you can find it, get Heller's "Good as Gold." In my opinion it's far better than his Catch 22.
It doesn't "prove" anything. What it does, in my mind, is indicate, better than beyond a resonable doubt that something outside of nature Created the Big Bang. At best it indicates a Deistic Being.
This of course is because what I said correlates with both philosophical and scientific statements that matter can be neither eternal nor can it create itself.
As well, anything that begins to exist has a cause. These, in my mind again point to something outside of nature.
It's troubling then why you an other atheists ignore science in an attempt to maintain your world-view.
"Science shows that it couldn't have come about by natural means"
!!!!
"physicists like Hawking who tell us that the odds of the universe coming into being by accident to be 1 chance in 10 ^ 1,230."
Ah, the cavalier use of probability with hindsight. Someone wins the lottery.
"...finely tuned constants and quantitites that allow our universe to not just exist but to be a life supporting universe..."
Life seems to be only in the tiniest tiniest part of the universe... It's like that story, the puddle who thinks the hole was designed for him because he fits in it.
Science shows that it couldn't have come about by natural means because there was nothing natural around at the Singularity.
However, several hypotheses regarding what existed at this time avoid the cosmic singularity. In addition, the cosmic singularity itself (assuming it ever existed, a tentative assumption at best) would have been natural.
I remain agnostic on this issue, because there is not enough data regarding this stage of the universe to reach any specific conclusion.
Then we could move to physicists like Hawking who tell us that the odds of the universe coming into being by accident to be 1 chance in 10 ^ 1,230.
The following was originally published in ANALYSIS in 1994 (Volume 54, No. 4. pp. 236-243).
Stephen Hawking has argued that there is 'no place for a creator', that God does not exist. In his quantum cosmology
"there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?" ([9], pp. 136, 141)
In addition, I cannot track down from whence you have obtained that probability value. However, if I was to take your sentence at face value, it can easily be shown that the universe did not "come into being by accident." It resulted from the interactions of the natural laws, which in all our experience are unchangable and inevitable results of how matter interacts with space-time and other matter.
If those odds give you pause, consider that each and every one of the 100 + finely tuned constants and quantitites that allow our universe to not just exist but to be a life supporting universe had to be in place prior to Planck time.
There are four fundamental forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear interaction, and the strong nuclear interaction. All other forces are derived from these.
There is a single universal constant: c, otherwise known as the speed of light.
Given our inability to posit the probability of life forming in our own universe, I am highly suspicious of any attempt to posit the probability of life forming in a universe with alternative physical values.
In addition, the fact that we are unaware of the number of universes in existence makes the 'global' probability of intelligent life forming somewhere an impossible to calculate value.
Ignoring the obvious so far that the emergency services had only the time and ability to save the one person before the plane blew up, and were risking their lives in the process, while god if he is omnipotent would have the ability to save everyone with no risk to himself, so it is a rather unfair comparison to make.
Quasar -
“However, several hypotheses regarding what existed at this time avoid the cosmic singularity.”
NONE of these hypotheses are workable because each and every one of them require a definitive space time boundary, a beginning, a Singularity, and Big Bang Creation event. Google Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. Even if something existed before “our” Singularity THAT would have required Singularity of it’s own.
==========
“In addition, the cosmic singularity itself (assuming it ever existed, a tentative assumption at best) would have been natural.”
Well I would REALLY be interested in the evidence that you have for that statement. Please explain how we can have a natural cause when nothing natural exists. If you answer nothing else, please answer this one.
=======
The following was originally published in ANALYSIS in 1994 (Volume 54, No. 4. pp. 236-243).
I’m curious as to why you left out the context of this quote. Here Hawking is proposing imaginary time. Hawking himself admits later on that this is completely unworkable and that once real time is reintroduced into the equation, the need for a singularity returns with full force - metaphysical implication included.
==========
“It resulted from the interactions of the natural laws . . . how matter interacts with space-time and other matter.”
Prior to the singularity
there weren’t any physical laws, there wasn’t any matter,
there wasn’t any space and
there wasn’t any time.
None of these things existed much less interacted with each other prior to the singularity.
===============
"I am highly suspicious of any attempt to posit the probability of life forming in a universe with alternative physical values."
Well perhaps if you would apprise Hawking and other astro physicists of your doubts, they could quit wasting so much time calculating odds that they mistakenly consider important.
=============
In addition, the fact that we are unaware of the number of universes in existence . . .”
Because of the lack of said evidence for ANY universe other than our own, true scientists ARE able to calculate probabilities based on reality and not on some “atheist origin of the universe mythology.”
==========
Flute - !!!!
There was nothing natural in existence to cause the singularity Flute. There are no known exceptions to the axiom that: Everything that comes into existence has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its being (it can’t NOT exist) or in an external cause. If you know of any exceptions then you should let us know about it / them.
==========
“Ah, the cavalier use of probability with hindsight. Someone wins the lottery.”
Just like that huh? Nothing to it. Life supporting universes or ANYTHING for that matter just pop into existence. Well it isn't just like that Flute. Unless there is a Creator there is absolutely no reason that ANYTHING should exist, certainly not a life-supporting universe.
As above - If you think Hawking and others of his caliber are wasting their time on things that can be dismissed in such a cavalier manner, surely they should be made aware of that problem - by you if Quasar doesn’t get there first.
I never deny science. There is not enough data about the origin of the universe to know what happened definitively.
History has not been kind to unknown things attributed to deities. As science advances, deities have become responsible for less and less of the human experience. There is no reason to expect a change in that trend.
Makarios, I can't help noticing that when you say things like
"physicists like Hawking who tell us..."
and
"Hawking himself admits later on that this is completely unworkable"
you don't quote a source like Quasar did or tell us where you got this from.
Anyway, I can see that this will end up at:
(Something Flute doesn't understand) THEREFORE (*Magic!!*)
NONE of these hypotheses are workable because each and every one of them require a definitive space time boundary, a beginning, a Singularity, and Big Bang Creation event.
The various cyclic and heirachial models, wherein this universe forms either from some sort of rebound effect of the universe reaching planck volume, or from a cosmological formation within a parent universe, do not require this.
Google Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem.
I have done so. This paper would seem to indicate that a universe that has always been inflating would be required, at some point in the past, to be a singularity. Such an assersion, whilst valid, does not take into account the concept of planck volume, or the fact that our physical laws break down as we approach the singularity. We still have no way of knowing what existed at this moment or prior to it, which is why I remain agnostic and open to all theories.
Even if something existed before “our” Singularity THAT would have required Singularity of it’s own.
With current methods, we have no way of knowing what existed prior to the Big Bang, so your assersion is nonsensical.
"In addition, the cosmic singularity itself (assuming it ever existed, a tentative assumption at best) would have been natural.”
Well I would REALLY be interested in the evidence that you have for that statement. Please explain how we can have a natural cause when nothing natural exists. If you answer nothing else, please answer this one.
The cosmic singularity is the mathematical representation of an infinitely small point containing all the matter in the universe. The matter that makes up the universe is, by definition, natural. Unless you are asserting that there exists some form of supernatural material within this universe, the singularity itself must have been made out of completely natural material.
I’m curious as to why you left out the context of this quote.
My apologies. I was not familiar with the context of the quote: my only reason for posting it was to demonstrate that Hawkings is an atheist, and does not find the arguments of fine-tuning using what you claimed were his probabilities convincing.
Prior to the singularity
there weren’t any physical laws, there wasn’t any matter,
there wasn’t any space and
there wasn’t any time.
None of these things existed much less interacted with each other prior to the singularity.
You state this as if you are certain of it. Do you have evidence to refute the various hypotheses that do not indicate this?
(cont)
Well perhaps if you would apprise Hawking and other astro physicists of your doubts, they could quit wasting so much time calculating odds that they mistakenly consider important.
Certainly, if you could show me the probabilities "Hawking and other astro physicists" have come up with for the formation of life in universes with different fundamental constants?
Allow me to summarise, Makarios: "There are far too many unknown factors to calculate the probability of life-as-we-know-it forming in our universe. Claiming that life-as-we-don't-know-it could not form in any universe with different fundamental constants is equivilent to claiming that you have calculated these unknown factors for all those hypothetical universes."
Because of the lack of said evidence for ANY universe other than our own, true scientists ARE able to calculate probabilities based on reality and not on some “atheist origin of the universe mythology.”
This is not true. Putting your unusual use of terminology aside, in order to calculate the probability of life forming anywhere in existence, one must first known the extent of 'existence.' We do not know whether universes besides our own exist, therefore we do not know the extend of existence, therefore we cannot calculate said probability.
Even if we could calculate the probability of life forming in this universe (a near-impossible proposition: number of universes isn't the only variable we are missing...) we would then only have a minimum probability, based on a single universe.
This is why I believe this probability, even if it could be calculated, means nothing: you have no evidence that there is 1.00 universes and I have no evidence that there are 5.34 x 10^462 universes, but both are equally plausible.
The various cyclic and heirachial models . . . do not require this.”
They most certainly do. In addition you are now proposing that there actually Can be an infinite regress of cause AND that matter Can exist from eternity AND that one Can traverse the material infinite ALL of which are false.
As well, we know from science that entropy would be carried forward into each new cycle. However, the incredibly low levels of entropy show that our universe did NOT have another cycle, not even ONE cycle prior to our universe.
Finally, to reiterate, even cyclic models require a definitive beginning - they cannot be infinite.
=============
“We still have no way of knowing what existed at this moment or prior to it,”
That’s correct, but we DO know what didn’t exist and what didn’t exist was matter, space, time, and the laws of physics.
=============
"Unless you are asserting that there exists some form of supernatural material within this universe, the singularity itself must have been made out of completely natural material.”
Yes it would have to be wouldn’t it? EXCEPT that we know that there wasn’t any tiny, little speck of condensed matter. There was NOTHING natural!!! Therefore the beginning of the universe was not natural.
Yet here we are. This suggestes to many people that what DID exist was something like the following:
Existing outside of and prior to matter, the Cause was Immaterial or Spiritual or on the order of a Mind
Existing outside of and prior to time the Cause was timeless, infinite and eternal
Existing as the Cause of the universe with its precisely finely tuned constants and quantities the Cause was intelligent and powerful beyond anything we can comprehend.
We tend to call this cause the Greatest Conceivable Being or God.
============
“You state this as if you are certain of it. Do you have evidence to refute the various hypotheses that do not indicate this?”
Yes we do. Have you ever wondered why more and more hypothesis are made? It’s because the one’s that came before aren’t workable. If any hypothesis was able to falsify Big Bang cosmology THAT would be the theory that people would be swooning over. Have you ever heard the silly statement, “It was in the last place that I looked”?
Atheists are looking and looking and looking and yet each and every attempt to refute or eliminate Big Bang has only succeeded in reinforcing its credibility. In fact NO cosmological argument has been so confirmed as the Big Bang simply by dozens of attempts to refute it. To date, ALL have failed.
=============
Certainly, if you could show me the probabilities "Hawking and other astro physicists" have come up with for the formation of life in universes with different fundamental constants?”
It’s too long. I’ll do it in this afternoon’s post.
============
This is why I believe this probability, even if it could be calculated, means nothing:”
Wow! You must fancy yourself to be quite a clever person. I wouldn’t think of going up against these scientists. Of course YouTube atheists have no qualms at all about doing this. I hope that's not where you're getting your source material from.
They most certainly do. In addition you are now proposing that there actually Can be an infinite regress of cause...
In an enclosed system, like a universe, there is no reason to assume that this is impossible.
... AND that matter Can exist from eternity ....
Time is a dimension. I see no reason that the past should be considered as any different to the future, in this respect. Since the future is a potential infinite, the past could easily be the same.
...AND that one Can traverse the material infinite
I do not believe that this is possible, due to the definition of infinity.
As well, we know from science that entropy would be carried forward into each new cycle.
Your assersion regarding what we "know from science" is false. It has been suggested that the rebound effect has the potential to undo the effects of entropy. Other hypothetical mechanisms have also been suggested.
That’s correct, but we DO know what didn’t exist and what didn’t exist was matter, space, time, and the laws of physics.
Your assersion is false, as evidenced by the existence of scientific hypotheses being considered other than the singularity model.
Yes it would have to be wouldn’t it? EXCEPT that we know that there wasn’t any tiny, little speck of condensed matter. There was NOTHING natural!!!
Are you aware of what Terry Pratchett wrote regarding the usage of multiple exclamation marks?
You appear to be enamoured of the nothing-to-singularity model, and refuse to accept the existence of other models. Even assuming the singularity model, what is precluding it from existing for eternity (eternity not having any meaning, given the lack of time) prior to the Big Bang?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory
Note the second two hypotheses.
Yes we do. Have you ever wondered why more and more hypothesis are made? It’s because the one’s that came before aren’t workable.
Physicists need no reason to come up with more hypotheses regarding the big bang. If they did, we would not see such a wide variety of concepts. In addition, the purely speculative nature of the time 'prior' to the Big Bang makes it very difficult to disprove or disregard any hypothesis.
Have you ever heard the silly statement, “It was in the last place that I looked”?
I have. The statement is logically sound, albeit redundant.
Atheists are looking and looking and looking and yet each and every attempt to refute or eliminate Big Bang has only succeeded in reinforcing its credibility.
I have not observed this tendency by atheists to attempt to refute or eliminate Big Bang cosmology. My experience is that most objections to big bang cosmology come from young earth creationists.
In fact NO cosmological argument has been so confirmed as the Big Bang simply by dozens of attempts to refute it. To date, ALL have failed.
This is correct. You appear to be confusing the Big Bang theory with what we are discussing: the events prior to the big bang.
Wow! You must fancy yourself to be quite a clever person.
I consider my intelligence to be slightly above the average, but not excessively so.
I wouldn’t think of going up against these scientists.
The ones you refuse to reference?
Of course YouTube atheists have no qualms at all about doing this. I hope that's not where you're getting your source material from.
I rarely watch anything on YouTube.
“In an enclosed system, like a universe, there is no reason to assume that this is impossible.”
What does a closed system have anything to do with it?
The materially infinite does not exist - Period
It’s impossible to traverse the materially infinite - Period
===============
“Since the future is a potential infinite, the past could easily be the same.”
We aren’t talking about potential infinites. We are talking about actual infinites which in reality do not and cannot exist.
================
“I do not believe that this is possible, due to the definition of infinity.”
Then why are you suggesting that this is what happened? It sounds as if you understand that if our universe or any succession of universes never had a beginning, then there is no way of us reaching today. But we HAVE reached today, therefore we know that our universe or any succession of universes did in fact have a beginning.
=================
"Your assersion regarding what we "know from science" is false. It has been suggested that the rebound effect has the potential to undo the effects of entropy. Other hypothetical mechanisms have also been suggested."
Paleez - that is such a crock. Why do you do this? Why do you take what is known, reject it and then base your world-view solely on hypothetical speculation? Like, doesn’t that concern you, embarrass you even? And if not, why not?
==============
Your assersion is false, as evidenced by the existence of scientific hypotheses being considered other than the singularity model.”
But none of them are workable!Can’t you get that? None of them are workable. The only reason, the ONLY reason that the Big Bang isn’t acceptable to atheists is because of it’s metaphysical implication.
Big Bang fits what we know about background radiation.
It fits with what we know about entropy.
It fits what we know about the Second Law of thermodynamics.
It fits what we know about Red Shift.
The Big Bang fits the evidence but atheist bias cannot tolerate the Big Bang because it points directly toward a Supernatural Cause.
Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The concept of the Big Bang is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.”
Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”
Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”
On the “bright” side David Hume stated, “I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without cause.
What's your reason for rejecting it?
============
“refuse to accept the existence of other models.”
I am very aware of their existence. Look, if you don’t understand the finding of Borde-Guth-Vilenkin, just say so. But don’t keep making the same useless claims over and over again. None of models proposed so far can escape a singularity - Period.
================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory
Ah yes, you don’t take the word of YouTube scholars but Wiki presents as plausible and un biased for you?
================
“My experience is that most objections to big bang cosmology come from young earth creationists.”
Ya - look at the company you’re keeping :-)
============
“The ones you refuse to reference?”
Do you think I’m lying? Do you think that I’m making up this stuff?
=========
What does a closed system have anything to do with it?
The materially infinite does not exist - Period
It’s impossible to traverse the materially infinite - Period.
I agree with both of your assersions. However, you will note that I was responding to an assersion regarding Time, which is a potential infinite.
Time is a dimension.
A direction in time (the future) is a potential infinite.
Why then can not the opposite direction (the past) be a potential infinite?
Then why are you suggesting that this is what happened? It sounds as if you understand that if our universe or any succession of universes never had a beginning, then there is no way of us reaching today. But we HAVE reached today, therefore we know that our universe or any succession of universes did in fact have a beginning.
Zero is a point in a one dimensional system between two potential infinites.
Why can not "Now" be a point in a one dimensional system between two potential infinites?
Note that I am not proposing that this is true: I am merely establishing it's plausibility.
Paleez - that is such a crock. Why do you do this? Why do you take what is known, reject it and then base your world-view solely on hypothetical speculation?
I do not. This is a valid subject currently under discussion amongst physicists such as P.J. Steinhardt and N. Turok (2001), and L. Baum and P.H. Frampton (2007).
But none of them are workable!Can’t you get that? None of them are workable.
There is no current workable theory that explains the origins of the universe. Our mathematical laws break down as we approach such extremes. We can't even unify relativity and quantum mechanics. Many hypotheses are proposed, including the "Therefore, God" one that you subscribe to. I remain agnostic on this issue, as I imagine you are tired of hearing.
The only reason, the ONLY reason that the Big Bang isn’t acceptable to atheists is because of it’s metaphysical implication.
Big Bang fits what we know about background radiation.
It fits with what we know about entropy.
It fits what we know about the Second Law of thermodynamics.
It fits what we know about Red Shift.
We are not discussing the big bang theory. The big bang theory concerns itself with the events after the big bang event. It can come to no conclusions regarding the events prior to it, or the moment of singularity itself (assuming it existed).
You appear to be conflating the well supported big bang theory, which all atheists accept, with the speculative theistic hypothesis that God was the cause of the event.
(cont)
What's your reason for rejecting it?
It has already been stated, but repetition can sometimes add emphasis. I do not reject the big bang theory.
I am very aware of their existence. Look, if you don’t understand the finding of Borde-Guth-Vilenkin, just say so. But don’t keep making the same useless claims over and over again. None of models proposed so far can escape a singularity - Period.
I believe I understand the findings of Borde-Guth-Vilenkin. I summarised them in an above post. You can point out what I've got wrong if you wish. Nevertheless, other models than the singularity exist: for example, what happens when you compress the universe to a diameter smaller than planck length? Is this even possible? If not, then a singularity is impossible, and we need a different pre-big bang model.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060508_mm_cyclic_universe.html
Ah yes, you don’t take the word of YouTube scholars but Wiki presents as plausible and un biased for you?
Rather than pointing out the irony of you rejecting "a priori" another persons sources, I will instead replace that reference with these. You will no doubt recognise that it would have been easier to just read wikipedia's summary.
^ Hawking, S.W. (1973). The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-09906-4.
^ Hartle, J.H.; Hawking, S.W. (1983). "Wave Function of the Universe". Physical Review D 28: 2960. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/09/063+ (inactive 2009-06-25).
^ Langlois, D. (2002). Brane Cosmology: An Introduction. arΧiv:hep-th/0209261.
^ Linde, A. (2002). Inflationary Theory versus Ekpyrotic/Cyclic Scenario. arΧiv:hep-th/0205259.
^ Than, K. (2006). "Recycled Universe: Theory Could Solve Cosmic Mystery". Space.com. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060508_mm_cyclic_universe.html. Retrieved on 2007-07-03.
^ Kennedy, B.K. (2007). "What Happened Before the Big Bang?". http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Bojowald6-2007.htm. Retrieved on 2007-07-03.
^ Linde, A. (1986). "Eternal Chaotic Inflation". Modern Physics Letters A1: 81.
^ Linde, A. (1986). "Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe".
Ya - look at the company you’re keeping :-)
Colon-parentheses.
Do you think I’m lying? Do you think that I’m making up this stuff?
No. I merely believe that you are using sources of dubious quality or integrity, and failing to reference them makes it difficult to demonstrate this fact to you.
Quasar -
“Time is a dimension.”
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. It is physically impossible to have an Actual Infinite Series of Things or Events or even "Moments of Time" preceding our today. Nor can we have an Actual Infinite Collection by adding Things or Events or "Moments of Time" one to another to another in order to reach today. This is why we can say with confidence that matter / universe cannot be infinite and that they haven’t always existed.
While mathematics is able to deal with abstract or theoretical or conceptual or potential infinities, reality holds no such possibility for us.
Time is not imaginary.
Time is not abstract or theoretical or conceptual.
Time is real.
Time is measured in real units.
============
“Zero is a point in a one dimensional system between two potential infinites.”
No, no it's not - In order to have tomorrow, we have to have today; not potentially but actually. In order to have today we had to have yesterday and so on. If the past did not have a beginning - a "day one," we could not have day two and if we didn’t have day two we could not have had day three and so on. One of the reasons, and just one of the reasons that we know the universe had a definitive beginning is because we have today. This isn’t just some goof blogger telling you this. This is a known philosophical axiom.
==============
I remain agnostic on this issue, as I imagine you are tired of hearing.”
NO! Good grief I’m deeply appreciative of those who admit the need for agnosticism. In my mind, it’s ONLY agnostics who go as far as the "scientific" evidence allows. Christians and atheists, on the other hand go a certain way on equal amounts of evidence and deductive reasoning and then for various reasons, we go the rest of the way on inductive reasoning that we believe coheres to our chosen world-views.
=============
“You appear to be conflating the well supported big bang theory, which all atheists accept, with the speculative theistic hypothesis that God was the cause of the event.”
I know what you mean but I find them to be both literally and figuratively inseparable.
Post a Comment