Hmmmm... that's a little bit like claiming that both believing in gnomes and NOT believing in gnomes are examples of superstition, as both of these positions need to take an unscientific leap in determining whether these metaphysical beings exist or not.
Can you see why that is not a very valid argument?
Superstition though, has a specific, separate meaning. Taking an unscientific leap is not the same thing as being superstitous. You can be an atheist or a theist without being superstitous, and you can believe in gnomes without being superstitous (although you'd probably be mistaken).
As a side note, superstition is forbidden by Christianity, and the reason is plain. If God is in control of the cosmos, walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror is of no consequence whatsoever; His will concerning me will be done whether I do or don't do those things. And of course the atheist, for a different reason, also believes those things are of no consequence (although I used to know a strong atheist who always used a "lucky" card protector when playing in poker tournaments; that seemed odd to me. ) Anyway, at least we should have that in common.
Superstition though, has a specific, separate meaning. Taking an unscientific leap is not the same thing as being superstitous. You can be an atheist or a theist without being superstitous, and you can believe in gnomes without being superstitous (although you'd probably be mistaken).
As a side note, superstition is forbidden by Christianity, and the reason is plain. If God is in control of the cosmos, walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror is of no consequence whatsoever; His will concerning me will be done whether I do or don't do those things. And of course the atheist, for a different reason, also believes those things are of no consequence (although I used to know a strong atheist who always used a "lucky" card protector when playing in poker tournaments; that seemed odd to me. ) Anyway, at least we should have that in common.
Superstition: 1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition 2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
I think it depends on the particular issue, but I would definitely think that, for example, Young Earth Creationism would be a prime example of superstition, according to Webster's definition. Perhaps you're saying Christainity forbids such a belief, but I don't see this happening.
__________________ Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
But laws (including laws of logic) only disallow things because they allow other things. Think about what a "law" is: every law, whether real or imagined, is an "if/then" statement - "If there is an action, then there is an equal and opposite reaction". "If you steal money, then you'll spend time in jail." "If something can go wrong, then it will go wrong." (Murphy's Law). But if there's no "if thing" to effect a "then result", then there can be no result.
While this is true within the current framework of the universe I believe PB has a valid point. If you remove the framework of our universe and have a true Nothing on which you are starting the If/Then nature of the laws we are familiar with no longer applies.
__________________ No silicon heaven? Where would all of the calculators go?
Kryton
Courage is the price that life exacts for granting peace. The soul that knows it not, knows no release from little things; Knows not the livid loneliness of fear, nor mountain hights where bitter joy can hear the sound of wings. How can life grant us boon of living, compensate for dull gray ugliness and pregnant hate unless we dare the soul's dominion? Each time we make a choice, we pay with courage to behold restless day, and count it fair.
Amelia Earhart
I realize that this theory / hypothesis / concept / whatever is not going to be the end-all creationism vs. atheism debate. This is just an idea I found interesting and wanted to see what everybody here thought about it.
ON TO THE SUBJECT:
I just had this sort of thought bouncing around in my head, and I think I had an epiphany. That or my brain exploded. Okay, consider this:
Before the universe existed, there were no laws. Of anything. No physics, no logic, no nothing.
If such a blank nothingness existed without laws, literally anything could happen.
In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed, it is infinitely probable for anything and everything to be created. Since there is an infinite amount of time and no binding guidelines, literally every possibility must be fulfilled.
This includes the spontaneous creation of our universe.
----------------------
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, creationists.
Sounds very God to me.
A lot better than nothing to mud to monkeys to man from the 0 x 0 = the universe offering from nongodianism.
I realize that this theory / hypothesis / concept / whatever is not going to be the end-all creationism vs. atheism debate. This is just an idea I found interesting and wanted to see what everybody here thought about it.
ON TO THE SUBJECT:
I just had this sort of thought bouncing around in my head, and I think I had an epiphany. That or my brain exploded. Okay, consider this:
Before the universe existed, there were no laws. Of anything. No physics, no logic, no nothing.
If such a blank nothingness existed without laws, literally anything could happen.
In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed, it is infinitely probable for anything and everything to be created. Since there is an infinite amount of time and no binding guidelines, literally every possibility must be fulfilled.
This includes the spontaneous creation of our universe.
----------------------
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, creationists.
That's the same thing I came up with myself a while ago Great minds think alike, eh?
__________________ "I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !
I realize that this theory / hypothesis / concept / whatever is not going to be the end-all creationism vs. atheism debate. This is just an idea I found interesting and wanted to see what everybody here thought about it.
ON TO THE SUBJECT:
I just had this sort of thought bouncing around in my head, and I think I had an epiphany. That or my brain exploded. Okay, consider this:
Before the universe existed, there were no laws. Of anything. No physics, no logic, no nothing.
If such a blank nothingness existed without laws, literally anything could happen.
In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed, it is infinitely probable for anything and everything to be created. Since there is an infinite amount of time and no binding guidelines, literally every possibility must be fulfilled.
This includes the spontaneous creation of our universe.
----------------------
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, creationists.
The problem is that you are not talking about nothing. You are actually talking about an empty space. Its really hard for our minds to phantom nothing. How can we imagine what is not? We are creatures of matter and substance, so we think of everything in those terms. When there is nothing we see an empty space. But nothing is not simply an emptiness.. it is not a vast space waiting to be filled... for that would be something. Its not an energy source waiting to produce something. Nothing is simply nothing. Nothing can only be nothing. For if its something other than nothing... its not really nothing.
So even if an Atheist thinks he has an explanation for everything, he still cannot explain why there was never a pure nothing... why there was always something.
__________________ * SHARE THAT SMILE * To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The problem is that you are not talking about nothing. You are actually talking about an empty space.
Erm - no. Empty space would be something. What we're talking is a singularity. Chaos. Tohu va Bohu. Infinite possibility. No-space. No-time. Everything, compressed into nothingness. The point that's not a point, where all opposites become one - and none. Up is down, hot is cold, now is then, and never.
Its really hard for our minds to phantom nothing. How can we imagine what is not? We are creatures of matter and substance, so we think of everything in those terms. When there is nothing we see an empty space. But nothing is not simply an emptiness.. it is not a vast space waiting to be filled... for that would be something. Its not an energy source waiting to produce something. Nothing is simply nothing. Nothing can only be nothing. For if its something other than nothing... its not really nothing.
So even if an Atheist thinks he has an explanation for everything, he still cannot explain why there was never a pure nothing... why there was always something.
Well, you see, and that's where you are wrong: I have yet to meet atheists who think that they can explain everything - as opposed to some theists, who believe that they have all the answers, contained in the pages of an anthology of myths composed in the late bronze age. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that most atheists became such because they realized that the answers provided by their original religion were too shallow, too simplistic, too altogether convenient and human.
The driving force behind science is the admittance of ignorance - and the desire to fill in the blanks.
The driving force behind religion, on the other hand, is the illusion of knowledge - and the desire to cling to it.
As for singularities and such like: present-day physics is a discipline that conceives of things few people can fathom, based on mathematical models that can be tested for accuracy. Ten-dimensional space curving in upon itself. Super-strings. Quantum mechanics. Gluons. And, yes, singularities.
*I* don't pretend to understand it all, having at best a cursory knowledge of such matters.
But even the most obscure mathematical novel still makes a billion times more sense to me than "The Great Celestial Artist hand-crafted the Universe". Why? Because that's as if a species of sentient dogs believed that dinosaur fossils came to be in the ground because the Dog From Heaven put them there. It's thinking within altogether human categories that leads people to imagine a creator. And to me, it's just a supremely silly idea, and one that solves none of the mysteries surrounding the fabric of space-time. Quite the contrary, you end up with a super-being that just existed, but whose deeds, thoughts and motivations are strangely reminiscent of our own species.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The problem is that you are not talking about nothing. You are actually talking about an empty space.
Actually, he made it clear that he's talking about the philosophical nothing (the complete and total absence of any thing), not the scientific vacuum (which, as Jane_the_Bane said, is not truly empty).
Originally Posted by Stormy
Its really hard for our minds to phantom nothing.
It's impossible to conceive absolute nothingness.
Originally Posted by Stormy
But nothing is not simply an emptiness.. it is not a vast space waiting to be filled... for that would be something. Its not an energy source waiting to produce something. Nothing is simply nothing.
Agreed.
Originally Posted by Stormy
Nothing can only be nothing.
Disagreed. Nothingness is not something that can 'only be', for it cannot 'be' at all. Nothingness is only the absence of any thing, and thus ceases to 'be' as soon as something exists (though English is poorly equipped to deal with such concepts).
Originally Posted by Stormy
For if its something other than nothing... its not really nothing.
That's the whole point: nothingness becomes somethingness, and thus ceases (in any meaningful sense) to be nothingness. As soon as some thing exists, nothingness no longer exists (inasmuch as it ever 'exists').
Now, something can arise 'from' nothingness because there is (quite literally) nothing to stop it doing otherwise. We know that things can spontaneously pop into existence in our spacetime continuum, so imagine what can arise when there are no restraints. There is no space, so everything would come into existence at the same point (insofar as there is only one, zero-dimensional point) and at the same time (inasmuch as time now exists at all). Thereafter, things obey their usual rules.
That's how something can come from nothing, and can come about in a specific way.
__________________ "I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science? To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !
Last edited by Wiccan_Child; 7th May 2009 at 12:02 PM.
) Anyway, at least we should have that in common. 
Linear Mode
