Question for the resident AT atheists

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
As an aside, "science," which you've managed to personify as some kind of singular entity, can actually test for infinity, if not measure it directly.

You cannot say that science has tested or measured infinity. Infinite density of a singularity is postulated to make the mathematical models work; however we have no idea what is really going on at that point.

I very clearly said that it can't be directly measured, but its environmental influence can be. It's something for which we can provide further evidence based on our understanding, at the very least, and if we find contrary evidence, we can amend our understanding. The same cannot be said of testing an infinite, unknowable God that by definition works outside the known laws of the universe; this is the false parallel I believe magomago was trying to draw.

 

[lxskllr]

I haven't really read this thread, as these discussions are generally tedious, but here's a good short article on evolution at Ars...

http://arstechnica.com/science...ow-about-evolution.ars

It doesn't fully apply to this discussion, but it should be interesting for both sides to read.

 

[syrillus]

Originally posted by: OILFIELDTRASH
He exists.

Atheists seem so angry when you bring up God. If its just a fairy tell how come you won't get so angry when someone mentions zombies or leprechans etc.?

The fact that you lump in a belief in God with a belief in zombies/leprechauns shows how laughable this discussion is.

<- believes in God. Also, I'm a physicist.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: magomago
Thor and Zeus to me are invalid and not real because it attempts to contain and describe God as if its a person with drawings, details, and stories. It is the exact same reason I said I don't think something like FSM is valid. Of course you are going to notice that using my perspective I do reject a lot of religions, and would even have arguments with people within my own religion. Sorry, but if God exists, its going to be outside our ability to truly understand its nature.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're a Christian, but if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. As far as not believing in Thor and Zeus because of stories that tell of their exploits, every single religion has stories that tell of God doing something. That's what religion is. God created Adam from dirt and Eve from his rib. That's a story about God. As for drawings, would you be talking about something like this? It seems spurious to dismiss one interpretation of a God or Gods because of reasons that apply equally to the God you choose to worship. I'm not faulting you for believing, but claiming that you dismiss other Gods because of qualities that apply to yours is illogical and dishonest.

In our western socities religious people, by and large, don't even bring up their religious views and are quiet on it. I personally think its wrong as interfaith debate is needed, else people simply grow up in a tradition without really learning to think critically about it; and from a religious perspective that is the most dangerous thing a faith can have --> a stagnation of critical thinking applied to religious scripture to constantly refresh and better understand the concept of God.

In Western societies, as in most of the world, religious people attempt to craft policy decisions at a government level based around their beliefs (regardless of any notions of a secular state). Gay marriage, gays in the military, abortion, the tax-exempt status of religious institutions, drug and alcohol laws, the taboo of nudity, these all have roots that extend into religion. Why is it that people can smoke one plant which grows naturally but not another? Why is it that women can be topless on the street but not on television? Why can gays apply for civil unions but not marriage licenses? People will come up with a wide variety of reasons, but it all boils down to a Puritanical sense of morality borne of a strict interpretation the Bible. Why else would they try to get creationism taught in a science class?

No, the notion that religious people don't bring up their religious views in Western society is simply false. It may not be as blatant as Sharia Law, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you're one of the believers, perhaps it simply registers as common sense, I'm not sure. For the non-religious in society, it's pretty damn easy to spot.

 

[DaedalCipher]

Originally posted by: sash1

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Can you please give me one scientific fact that proves a giant monster that is invisble, weightless, and dreams of killing us all lives in the center of the earth?

Text

^ =awesome

 

[polarbear6]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: polarbear6
Well .. Certain proof that god exists that is .. Our planetary motion ..

If a big ball explodes into pieces ... How the hell will the parts starts moving around the remaining mass, instead of falling right on to it .. ??

I just realised that this can happen .. If only the pieces are projected at a angle with the original big ball's normal ... Could any one confirm this for me ..

WTF are you even asking? Are you asking someone to explain the behavior of objects in orbit? Is it evidence of God's existence because you don't understand it?

Am not talking about the motion of the objects already in a orbit ..

But how they came into the orbit in the first place.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: polarbear6

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: polarbear6
Well .. Certain proof that god exists that is .. Our planetary motion ..

If a big ball explodes into pieces ... How the hell will the parts starts moving around the remaining mass, instead of falling right on to it .. ??

I just realised that this can happen .. If only the pieces are projected at a angle with the original big ball's normal ... Could any one confirm this for me ..

WTF are you even asking? Are you asking someone to explain the behavior of objects in orbit? Is it evidence of God's existence because you don't understand it?

Am not talking about the motion of the objects already in a orbit ..

But how they came into the orbit in the first place.

/facepalm

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: polarbear6

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: polarbear6
Well .. Certain proof that god exists that is .. Our planetary motion ..

If a big ball explodes into pieces ... How the hell will the parts starts moving around the remaining mass, instead of falling right on to it .. ??

I just realised that this can happen .. If only the pieces are projected at a angle with the original big ball's normal ... Could any one confirm this for me ..

WTF are you even asking? Are you asking someone to explain the behavior of objects in orbit? Is it evidence of God's existence because you don't understand it?

Am not talking about the motion of the objects already in a orbit ..

But how they came into the orbit in the first place.

/facepalm

Brb, physics.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: polarbear6

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: polarbear6
Well .. Certain proof that god exists that is .. Our planetary motion ..

If a big ball explodes into pieces ... How the hell will the parts starts moving around the remaining mass, instead of falling right on to it .. ??

I just realised that this can happen .. If only the pieces are projected at a angle with the original big ball's normal ... Could any one confirm this for me ..

WTF are you even asking? Are you asking someone to explain the behavior of objects in orbit? Is it evidence of God's existence because you don't understand it?

Am not talking about the motion of the objects already in a orbit ..

But how they came into the orbit in the first place.

The variance in the density of the early universe coupled with the momentum from the Big Bang itself. The density variance provided the opportunity for areas to seperate and collapse and form galaxies>planetary systems>bodies, the momentum of the "big Bang" provided the direction of spin of those bodies, subsequent collisions between bodies provided variances in spin.

 

[IronWing]

It's been a week. Have I won any converts yet?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: polarbear6

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: polarbear6
Well .. Certain proof that god exists that is .. Our planetary motion ..

If a big ball explodes into pieces ... How the hell will the parts starts moving around the remaining mass, instead of falling right on to it .. ??

I just realised that this can happen .. If only the pieces are projected at a angle with the original big ball's normal ... Could any one confirm this for me ..

WTF are you even asking? Are you asking someone to explain the behavior of objects in orbit? Is it evidence of God's existence because you don't understand it?

Am not talking about the motion of the objects already in a orbit ..

But how they came into the orbit in the first place.

The variance in the density of the early universe coupled with the momentum from the Big Bang itself. The density variance provided the opportunity for areas to seperate and collapse and form galaxies>planetary systems>bodies, the momentum of the "big Bang" provided the direction of spin of those bodies, subsequent collisions between bodies provided variances in spin.

As far as we know the universe itself does not have a net angular momentum - in fact if it did then one of the most important cosmological principles, that the universe is isotropic (there is no preferred direction) would be violated. Although we don't have any "physical" reasons to believe this (isotropy) is true, the idea has been instrumental in developing our known physical laws.

Rotating stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters can still come from the big bang. Angular momentum is conserved, so a system rotating in one direction would be cancelled out by some other system rotating in the opposite direction. polarbear6 suggests that systems in stable orbit are so unlikely that god must be involved. I guess he doesn't realize how stable these systems are.

 

[polarbear6]

Originally posted by: rbV5

The variance in the density of the early universe coupled with the momentum from the Big Bang itself. The density variance provided the opportunity for areas to seperate and collapse and form galaxies>planetary systems>bodies, the momentum of the "big Bang" provided the direction of spin of those bodies, subsequent collisions between bodies provided variances in spin.

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer


As far as we know the universe itself does not have a net angular momentum - in fact if it did then one of the most important cosmological principles, that the universe is isotropic (there is no preferred direction) would be violated. Although we don't have any "physical" reasons to believe this (isotropy) is true, the idea has been instrumental in developing our known physical laws.

Rotating stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters can still come from the big bang. Angular momentum is conserved, so a system rotating in one direction would be cancelled out by some other system rotating in the opposite direction. polarbear6 suggests that systems in stable orbit are so unlikely that god must be involved. I guess he doesn't realize how stable these systems are.

Honestly I didn't understand what you said(A complement), cause am a idiot. But what I did understand is that your claiming that some of the masses which exploded and expanded from the initial universe possessed clockwise momentum and the rest counterclockwise momentum(which are equal).
And we have to assume that universe exploded from the center, or else the expansion of universe will not be uniform. So only collisions with the rest of the masses imparted the some of the masses positive momentum and the same collisions imparted the rest of the masses negative spin.This perfect proportional division of the 0 momentum of the universe seems to be too perfect to me. Thats why I feel there to be a god's hand.

Am sorry if my arguments seem to be baseless as I'm 17 and am a poor student in physics. I did google to know what big bang is.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: polarbear6

Originally posted by: rbV5

The variance in the density of the early universe coupled with the momentum from the Big Bang itself. The density variance provided the opportunity for areas to seperate and collapse and form galaxies>planetary systems>bodies, the momentum of the "big Bang" provided the direction of spin of those bodies, subsequent collisions between bodies provided variances in spin.

Well, For that to happen, The expansion shouldn't be from the center of the universe(if it was from the center , then direction of velocities would be along the normals to the elliptical path they are traveling)

You've failed the test of a fundamental understanding of big bang theory. Educate yourself then return to the argument.

 

[polarbear6]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: polarbear6

Originally posted by: rbV5

The variance in the density of the early universe coupled with the momentum from the Big Bang itself. The density variance provided the opportunity for areas to seperate and collapse and form galaxies>planetary systems>bodies, the momentum of the "big Bang" provided the direction of spin of those bodies, subsequent collisions between bodies provided variances in spin.

Well, For that to happen, The expansion shouldn't be from the center of the universe(if it was from the center , then direction of velocities would be along the normals to the elliptical path they are traveling)

You've failed the test of a fundamental understanding of big bang theory. Educate yourself then return to the argument.

Yeah we haven't yet started in modern physics in my HS, so I might have mistaken.And yeah I know that big bang theory is very preliminary that every one should know, But I didn't read the fine print, so I'm running into a lot of meaningless and void arguments. Any how, I changed that argument so that it only concentrates on the second case of my earlier argument.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: polarbear6

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: polarbear6

Originally posted by: rbV5

The variance in the density of the early universe coupled with the momentum from the Big Bang itself. The density variance provided the opportunity for areas to seperate and collapse and form galaxies>planetary systems>bodies, the momentum of the "big Bang" provided the direction of spin of those bodies, subsequent collisions between bodies provided variances in spin.

Well, For that to happen, The expansion shouldn't be from the center of the universe(if it was from the center , then direction of velocities would be along the normals to the elliptical path they are traveling)

You've failed the test of a fundamental understanding of big bang theory. Educate yourself then return to the argument.

Yeah we haven't yet started in modern physics in my HS, so I might have mistaken.And yeah I know that big bang theory is very preliminary that every one should know, But I didn't read the fine print, so I'm running into a lot of meaningless and void arguments. Any how, I changed that argument so that it only concentrates on the second case of my earlier argument.

Ok then why do you try to make an argument if you don't even know the basic facts?

 

[polarbear6]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: polarbear6

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: polarbear6

Originally posted by: rbV5

The variance in the density of the early universe coupled with the momentum from the Big Bang itself. The density variance provided the opportunity for areas to seperate and collapse and form galaxies>planetary systems>bodies, the momentum of the "big Bang" provided the direction of spin of those bodies, subsequent collisions between bodies provided variances in spin.

Well, For that to happen, The expansion shouldn't be from the center of the universe(if it was from the center , then direction of velocities would be along the normals to the elliptical path they are traveling)

You've failed the test of a fundamental understanding of big bang theory. Educate yourself then return to the argument.

Yeah we haven't yet started in modern physics in my HS, so I might have mistaken.And yeah I know that big bang theory is very preliminary that every one should know, But I didn't read the fine print, so I'm running into a lot of meaningless and void arguments. Any how, I changed that argument so that it only concentrates on the second case of my earlier argument.

Ok then why do you try to make an argument if you don't even know the basic facts?

I never said, I don't know the basic facts .. I just said that I didn't knew of some facts of the big bang theory, which I read some 4 years ago. So without reading them, I posed a argument which I felt to be baseless after reading the facts, so I edited it. But before I did that she made a quote of that.

And to be more specific, I was only talking of the forces involved in the big explosion. and the forces which balanced the angular momentum after the explosion.

 

[Jeff7]

My simplified take of the early Universe, and the formation of rotating, orbiting bodies is this:
When an explosion occurs, eddies and vortices form all over the place due to turbulence. It's just that, for us, these little swirls here and there are the size of galaxies, and on a smaller scale within them, you had more little swirls of gas, which coalesced under gravity to form stars. Surrounding these stars were still more swirls, which coalesced to form planets.

Matter which happened to not be in a stable position already fell into the gravity well of the forming star. Matter which was in a stable position remained there. If you look at planetary systems, the vast majority of the mass is within the parent star, while the rest of the system is almost entirely empty space, with a few tiny planets here and there. In that sense, it sure looks like stable orbits are the exception, and not the rule - the mass prefers to lump itself together.



That example is kind of similar to how people say "Earth is perfect for life."
Some of this which follows is very roughly paraphrasing Neil deGrasse Tyson, (I'd post the video if I could find it), interwoven with some of my own thoughts:
If I dropped you butt-naked just about anywhere on this planet, you'd be dead in 24hrs.
1) About 70% of the planet is ocean, so you'd probably drown.
2) Antarctica's out, as well as a lot of extreme latitudes - you'd freeze solid in a hurry.
3) Too hot, or too little water.
4) Something would try to eat you.

And, in the history of the planet, 99%+ of all species that ever existed are now gone, erased from existence. Plus, life only comprises a thin film on the planet's crust. Most of the planet's volume is utterly uninhabitable.
This planet, and the surrounding solar system, are not at all friendly to life. It has to struggle and constantly adapt just so that it can even continue to exist. Life even has to continually renew itself through reproduction, simply because exposure to this environment erodes away basic components of every cell. Throughout your entire life, the Universe is trying to kill you.

 

[rbV5]

and either you believe we don't have all the answers due to our ignorance of the processes involved (that would be my "belief") or that we don't have all the answers because they are the unknowable result of the "hand of God" (seems less likely to me)

 

[polarbear6]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
My simplified take of the early Universe, and the formation of rotating, orbiting bodies is this:
When an explosion occurs, eddies and vortices form all over the place due to turbulence. It's just that, for us, these little swirls here and there are the size of galaxies, and on a smaller scale within them, you had more little swirls of gas, which coalesced under gravity to form stars. Surrounding these stars were still more swirls, which coalesced to form planets.

Matter which happened to not be in a stable position already fell into the gravity well of the forming star. Matter which was in a stable position remained there. If you look at planetary systems, the vast majority of the mass is within the parent star, while the rest of the system is almost entirely empty space, with a few tiny planets here and there. In that sense, it sure looks like stable orbits are the exception, and not the rule - the mass prefers to lump itself together.

Thanks Jeff 7 that clarifies my doubt. The formation of eddies and vortex and the gaseous state of universe explained it to me. Thanks a lot. This I didn't find in the site from which I was reading about big bang. Thanks a lot for educating me guys ..

But coming to the topic,
we know that singularity had the big bang. But the existence of singularity however again raises the point that god might have created it. Can you explain that.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Jeff7's explanation is pretty good, although the eddies and vortices only had an effect in the very, very early universe (we're talking the first few fractions of a second). After the primordial plasma decoupled into matter the only real interaction happened via gravity and physical interaction (collisions). I'd also like to be very clear (because this is something that really grates at me) that the big bang was not an "explosion", a word that I've seen been tossed around recklessly. An explosion is something that happens at some point in space and time - this is not what the big bang is, and one reason I don't like the name "big bang".

The BB was an expansion of space and time themselves. I can go into much, much more detail if you're interested, but there is an ass ton of great literature out there. To address polarbear6's last post,

we know that singularity had the big bang. But the existence of singularity however again raises the point that god might have created it. Can you explain that.

It's certainly an interesting question, but it is not in the domain of big bang theory. Just like evolutionary theory doesn't deal with how life came about, the BB theory doesn't deal with how the universe came to be - it merely attempts to explain how it got from it's early, compact state to the current state. God may have created the early universe and set off the big bang, but there is no evidence that this is the case and I reject the idea for two reasons: 1, it doesn't explain anything. It offers no new insight or information and doesn't answer any questions, and 2. it begs the question, what created god?

 

[Nebor]

The sooner we march all the religious lunatics walking among us into gas chambers the better off this world will be. No more global conflict originating from religion. Stem cell research could begin again. Women could have all the abortions they wanted, wherever they want them in the world...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: FetusCakeMix
A smart atheist identifies as agnostic.

Don't be an asshole.

There shouldn't even be a word for not believing in fairy-tales.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Jeff7's explanation is pretty good, although the eddies and vortices only had an effect in the very, very early universe (we're talking the first few fractions of a second). After the primordial plasma decoupled into matter the only real interaction happened via gravity and physical interaction (collisions). I'd also like to be very clear (because this is something that really grates at me) that the big bang was not an "explosion", a word that I've seen been tossed around recklessly. An explosion is something that happens at some point in space and time - this is not what the big bang is, and one reason I don't like the name "big bang".

Bah, time is relative anyway.


And yes, I tend to think of it somewhat more as an eruption than an explosion.
Space, time, and energy erupted, expanded, whatever, from...........from something that wasn't any of those three things. Brane-space, or whatever you want to call that.

Interesting stuff, any way you look at it. And dammit I need sleep now.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: moshquerade


sure it's insulting when someone compares my beliefs to a pink unicorn living up my cooch. don't tell me that's not insulting.

its certainly accurate, however. Stupid beliefs deserve to be insulted. Since you have stupid beliefs, you deserve to be insulted.

Originally posted by: ironwing
I can prove it mathematically.

2 + 2 = 4

There is no room for god in that equation. If you put god in there, the equation won't balance. If you add god to your life, either your life won't balance or, if you believe god provides balance, this suggests you were unbalanced to begin with.

nice try :beer:

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
its certainly accurate, however. Stupid beliefs deserve to be insulted. Since you have stupid beliefs, you deserve to be insulted.

I don't think this is true. Much like the Christian concept of "Hate the sin, love the sinner," atheists should hate the belief, educate the believer.