Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[Wiccan_Child]

Are not questions themselves supernatural phenomena?

I'd have to say no .

I could dissect your quotation and provide a lengthy rebuttle, but I think that's a wee bit off-topic.

 

[mpok1519]

Wouldn't that mean God is an inanimate group, rather than an individual intelligence?

The entire complicated stratification of natural processes of the universe is intellegent in my eyes; we operate by the same principles of inanimate objects; heck, aren't we inanimate objects in the larger scheme of things? Infact, nothing is inanimate. Atoms consistently vibrate and move, a form of animation. While the atom itself is an individual, it is also apart of a group, but is also the one thing everything is made up of; energy, essentially.

How come people don't see the earth as a living breathing thing? I do

I think the universe can be seen as the same, in essence.

 

[Penumbra]

How come people don't see the earth as a living breathing thing? I do

Because the earth doesn't have massive, earth-sized lungs, and therefore does not breathe. Seeing how it mainly is made up of rock and metal, molten or otherwise, with a thin film of life on its surface, I don't think it qualifies as life, at least by an definition of life that is normally used.

It could be said to be a carrier of life. By itself it's a big ball of matter, or a big ball of energy, whichever you prefer. In order for me to see the earth as a living, breathing, thing, someone would have to provide me a reason to think of it as that.

Same thing goes for the universe. As I see it, it's a buzzing array of atoms, neutrinos, photons, and whatever makes up matter and energy at its fundamental level. If someone can show that these atoms of the universe form a massive, universe-sized coherent thought, much like how atoms in a human brain can form a coherent thought (sometimes ), then I'll think of the universe as a living thing.

-Lyn

 

[mpok1519]

Because the earth doesn't have massive, earth-sized lungs, and therefore does not breathe. Seeing how it mainly is made up of rock and metal, molten or otherwise, with a thin film of life on its surface, I don't think it qualifies as life, at least by an definition of life that is normally used.

It could be said to be a carrier of life. By itself it's a big ball of matter, or a big ball of energy, whichever you prefer. In order for me to see the earth as a living, breathing, thing, someone would have to provide me a reason to think of it as that.

-Lyn

ah, but, it does respirate and produce gas of its own in some respects; I see that as kind of "breathing", not from a biological standpoint, but definately from a geologic one. Sure, it doesn't gain nutrients from these gases, but there are important purposes and processes integral to the stability of earth's homeostasis. since earth has its own form of inner homeostatic system as people do, its not very far off to say the earth "lives". I mean, the entire universe is comprised of energy, and matters is a state of energy, per se, then the entire culminative of the entire universe could be one giant living organism in some respects.

I guess I just take the word "life" and try to multiply its applicable definiton; y'know, being a pantheistic christian and all.

We say "life", "thought" and "breath", but these ideas that describe biological processes are akin/comparable to non-biological forces and processes.

Im just weird like that. =P

 

[Penumbra]

ah, but, it does respirate and produce gas of its own in some respects; I see that as kind of "breathing", not from a biological standpoint, but definately from a geologic one. Sure, it doesn't gain nutrients from these gases, but there are important purposes and processes integral to the stability of earth's homeostasis. since earth has its own form of inner homeostatic system as people do, its not very far off to say the earth "lives". I mean, the entire universe is comprised of energy, and matters is a state of energy, per se, then the entire culminative of the entire universe could be one giant living organism in some respects.

I guess I just take the word "life" and try to multiply its applicable definiton; y'know, being a pantheistic christian and all.

We say "life", "thought" and "breath", but these ideas that describe biological processes are akin/comparable to non-biological forces and processes.

Im just weird like that. =P

Sure, the earth's atmosphere is complex. There is a thin film of gas on the rocky earth, and it is a delicate balance. Even the earth's crust moves around, though I hear from the science channel and such that eventually, over millions of years, the crust will cool down and stop. Regardless, it's still dynamic in the meantime.

But I don't view motion and complexity as life. Nor do I view something to be life simply because it is made out of matter and energy. A chunk of brass is made out of matter and energy, and when looked at very, very deeply, its atoms and still smaller electrons are buzzing around in ways we can't imagine. But the cumulative effect is a chunk of brass.

About a minute after I posted my last post, I added another paragraph to my post about the universe, but I guess you already had begun responding so it's not in your quote. If you feel like reading that, it's there. Or better yet, I'll just copy it here:

"Same thing goes for the universe. As I see it, it's a buzzing array of atoms, neutrinos, photons, and whatever makes up matter and energy at its fundamental level. If someone can show that these atoms of the universe form a massive, universe-sized coherent thought, much like how atoms in a human brain can form a coherent thought (sometimes ), then I'll think of the universe as a living thing."

(And a god, really, if it's that big of a thought.)

I guess even without a thought, in loose terms the universe could be thought of as a giant bacterium if one wants to be poetic about it. But in bacteria, there is still unification. It's got DNA or RNA describing it, and various organelles that work together for a purpose.

-Lyn

 

[mpok1519]

im just from the school of thought taught to us by the disney movie "Fern Gulley"

"Cant you feel its pain?"
"Its, pain?"

=P hehehe

 

[DeathMagus]

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.

Sorry dude - infinite time doesn't mean that the probability of any given event reaches 1.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Sorry dude - infinite time doesn't mean that the probability of any given event reaches 1.

Wow, that is a very bold statement. It seems to support deism or theism far more than any idea of random processes creating even an atom. Or anything far simpler than that.

Michael Behe gets one step closer to Darwin status.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I'd have to say no .

I could dissect your quotation and provide a lengthy rebuttle, but I think that's a wee bit off-topic.

I believe you would prove my point if you did.

 

[DeathMagus]

Wow, that is a very bold statement. It seems to support deism or theism far more than any idea of random processes creating even an atom. Or anything far simpler than that.

Michael Behe gets one step closer to Darwin status.

Not really. The probability of an event only increases with greater opportunity if the event's probability is greater than zero. If something can't happen, then it doesn't matter how much time you have. If something is extremely unlikely to happen, however, greater time increases the odds of it occurring.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Not really. The probability of an event only increases with greater opportunity if the event's probability is greater than zero. If something can't happen, then it doesn't matter how much time you have. If something is extremely unlikely to happen, however, greater time increases the odds of it occurring.

OK. But how much time? How can extremely unlikely exist unless soemthing existed before it to allow for the probability of it?

Consider also the strength of gravity. When the Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, the matter in the universe was randomly distributed. There were no stars, planets or galaxies—just atoms floating about in the dark void of space.

As the universe expanded outwards from the Big Bang, gravity pulled ever so gently on the atoms, gathering them into clumps that eventually became stars and galaxies. But gravity had to have just the right force—if it was a bit stronger, it would have pulled all the atoms together into one big ball.

The Big Bang—and our prospects—would have ended quickly in a Big Crunch. And if gravity was a bit weaker, the expanding universe would have distributed the atoms so widely that they would never have been gathered into stars and galaxies.

The strength of gravity has to be exactly for stars to form. But what do we mean by “exactly”?

Well, it turns out that if we change gravity by even a tiny fraction of a percent—enough so that you would be, say, one billionth of a gram heavier or lighter—the universe becomes so different that there are no stars, galaxies, or planets. And without planets, there would be no life. The other constants of nature possess this same feature. Change any of them, and the universe, like Robert Frost’s traveler, moves along a very different path. And remarkably, every one of these different paths leads to a universe without life in it.

Our universe is friendly to life, but only because the past fifteen billion years have unfolded in a particular way that led to a habitable planet with liquid water and rich chemistry.

- The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation

"A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see."

— Stephen Hawking

S.W. Hawking and Thomas Hertog, Populating the Landscape: A Top Down Approach (10 Feb 2006) (accessed February 5, 2009). As also in Appendix A in John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale, Questions of Truth (Louisville, KY[0]: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).

 

[corvus_corax]

It seems to support deism or theism far more than any idea of random processes creating even an atom. Or anything far simpler than that.

How so?
Please be detailed and don't rely on your "snappy" one liners, tyvm.

Michael Behe gets one step closer to Darwin status.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaah, Behe, who testified that ID was just as much "science" as was astrology (according to his interpretation of "science" relating to ID).
Behe, who admitted that (and I quote) "complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years)


Unlike Darwin, Behe is still depending on an ages old book, and desperately desperately desperately trying (even going so far as to pointedly deceive his intended audience) to make "the facts fit".

Sad really.
Do you actually buy his male bovine feces? I actually had the hope that you were smarter than that (despite how often I disagree with you).

 

[DeathMagus]

OK. But how much time? How can extremely unlikely exist unless soemthing existed before it to allow for the probability of it?

Could you be a little clearer - I don't understand your question.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

How so?
Please be detailed and don't rely on your "snappy" one liners, tyvm.


Yeaaaaaaaaaaah, Behe, who testified that ID was just as much "science" as was astrology (according to his interpretation of "science" relating to ID).
Behe, who admitted that (and I quote) "complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years)


Unlike Darwin, Behe is still depending on an ages old book, and desperately desperately desperately trying (even going so far as to pointedly deceive his intended audience) to make "the facts fit".

Sad really.
Do you actually buy his male bovine feces? I actually had the hope that you were smarter than that (despite how often I disagree with you).

Do you have any more snappy one-liners?

You did not disappoint Hitchens or Dawkins or Polycarp_fan though.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Could you be a little clearer - I don't understand your question.

Extremely unlikely, posits probablity does it not?

No matter how hard the atheists try to ignore reality, nothing cannot move anything to become something. It's not "extremely unlikely," it is provably impossible.

In fact, try typing a response to my post here by not doing anything at all.

0 x 0 = 0

Can you show the universe as a representation of zero acting on nothing?

And yes, you have my support to actually start the process of typing a reply.

 

[corvus_corax]

Do you have any more snappy one-liners?

Unlike you, no.

You did not disappoint Hitchens or Dawkins or Polycarp_fan though.

I presented evidence.
You presented one sided hyperbole.

Care to take another shot? I doubt it.
For one reason- You cannot defend Behe's statements when he was forced to admit his reasoning under oath.

And you hold this guy up?
Seriously?

Like I said, despite the fact that you and I disagree often, I thought you were more intelligent than to back up someone who equates Astrology with his personal version of science. I thought you were more intelligent than to back up a person who admitted, under oath, that their idea of "irreducible complexity" could have evolved within a short 20 thousand years.
I thought you were smarter than that (no, really, no sarcasm intended, I really did think that)


Now, do you care to actually address my previous post, or are you going to (once again) just wimp out with one-line jabs?

 

[corvus_corax]

Can you show the universe as a representation of zero acting on nothing?

Where do you get that from?
And please don't repeat your 0x0=atheism stuff again.
EXPLAIN what you mean from the quote above, with details.
Trust me, I would love a theist to actually explain that in a way that makes sense.



YOU can be the first in the history of mankind to impress me in regard to this argument.

So impress me.

Or just give me a snappy, non-sensical one-liner.
Your choice.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The entire complicated stratification of natural processes of the universe is intellegent in my eyes; we operate by the same principles of inanimate objects; heck, aren't we inanimate objects in the larger scheme of things? Infact, nothing is inanimate. Atoms consistently vibrate and move, a form of animation.

Movement isn't the same as animation. The atoms in humans and rocks are moving, but only the former is animate.

While the atom itself is an individual, it is also apart of a group, but is also the one thing everything is made up of; energy, essentially.

How come people don't see the earth as a living breathing thing? I do

The Earth is a complex and dynamic system, but 'living' is a bit of an overstatement.

I think the universe can be seen as the same, in essence.

To you, what does it mean to be 'alive'?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I believe you would prove my point if you did.

And that point would be...?

 

[DeathMagus]

Extremely unlikely, posits probablity does it not?

No matter how hard the atheists try to ignore reality, nothing cannot move anything to become something. It's not "extremely unlikely," it is provably impossible.

Is your essential argument here from the law of conservation of mass/energy? "Something cannot be created from nothing" - is that the gist of it?

0 x 0 = 0

Can you show the universe as a representation of zero acting on nothing?

And yes, you have my support to actually start the process of typing a reply.

To what are you assigning values of zero in your equation, and why?

What do you mean by the universe being "a representation of zero"? Zero is a symbol - a representation of something. Essentially, you're saying "a representation of another representation" which makes no sense. What does it mean for the universe to "act", and why would it "act" on "nothing"? What is the nothing?

I'm not trying to sidestep here - you seem to have a view of our universe that I've never encountered before, so you'll have to explain the model slowly so I can talk about it.