Belief in God rises with age, even in atheist nations

Apr 19, 2012 By William Harms
A survey by NORC at the University of Chicago found that belief in God is strongest among Catholic societies, especially in the developing world, with the highest levels of belief held among the elderly. Credit: iStockphoto.com

(Phys.org) -- International surveys about the depth of people’s belief in God reveal vast differences among nations, ranging from 94 percent of people in the Philippines who said they always believed in God, compared to only 13 percent of people in the former East Germany. Yet the surveys found one constant—belief in God is higher among older people, regardless of where they live.

A new report on the international surveys, “ About Across Time and Countries,” was issued by the General Social Survey of the social science research organization NORC at the University of Chicago. It is based on a comprehensive, international study of belief in God and includes information from the International Social Survey Program, a consortium of the world’s leading opinion survey organizations. Tom W. Smith, director of the General , wrote the report.

The data came from 30 countries in which surveys about belief in God have been taken, in some cases, since 1991. Researchers asked questions to determine people’s range of beliefs, from atheism to strong belief in God; their changing beliefs over their lifetime; and their attitude toward the notion that God is concerned with individuals. 

Belief in God varies widely across nations, cultures

Countries with the strongest belief in God tended to be Catholic societies, especially in the developing world, such as the Philippines. The people of the stood out for their high in belief in God among developed countries with large Protestant populations. Competition among denominations may account for that interest in religion, Smith said.

The surveys found:

• Atheism is strongest in northwest European countries such as Scandinavia and the former Soviet states (except for Poland). The former East Germany had the highest rate of people who said they never believed in God (59 percent); in comparison, 4 percent of Americans had that response.

• The country with the strongest belief is the Philippines, where 94 percent of those surveyed said they always had believed in God. In the United States, that response came from 81 percent of people surveyed.

• Although by most measures, belief in God is gradually declining worldwide, it is increasing in Russia, Slovenia and Israel. In Russia, comparing the difference between those who believe in God but hadn’t previously, and those who don’t believe in God but used to, researchers found a 16 percent change in favor of belief.

• Support for the concept that God is concerned with people in a personal way ranged from 8 percent in the former East Germany to 82 percent in the Philippines. In the United States, 68 percent of people surveyed held that view.

“Belief in God has decreased in most countries, but the declines are quite modest especially when calculated on a per annum basis,” Smith said. 

The constant: Belief in God grows with age

Belief is highest among older adults. On average, 43 percent of those aged 68 and older are certain that God exists, compared with 23 percent of those 27 and younger, according to the report. 

Many sociologists who have studied people's beliefs in God over time contend that there is a cohort effect; young people who are more likely to doubt God's existence carry their disbelief with them as they age, meaning that societies as a whole are tending to become more secular. But the NORC study suggests it's possible instead that people change their beliefs over time.

“Looking at differences among age groups, the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older. This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups, perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality,” Smith said. He noted that the higher level of belief does not appear to be simply a cohort effect.

In the United States, for instance, 54 percent of people younger than 28 said they were certain of God’s existence, compared with 66 percent of the people 68 and older.

In countries with low overall belief in God, the difference in belief between age groups is also strong. In France, for example, 8 percent of younger people said they were certain that God exists, compared with 26 percent of the people 68 and older. In Austria, 8 percent of the younger generation said they were certain in their belief, while 32 percent of people 68 and older were confident of God’s existence.

The surveys were taken in 1991, 1998 and 2008, when 42 countries were surveyed. The study was done on countries that had been surveyed at least twice.

Explore further: Violence rates can be halved in just 30 years, say leading experts

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Intuitive thinking may influence belief in God

Sep 20, 2011

Intuition may lead people toward a belief in the divine and help explain why some people have more faith in God than others, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.

Survey finds many doctors religious

Jun 23, 2005

A University of Chicago survey suggests 76 percent of physicians believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

Recommended for you

User comments : 285

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Hev
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
Nothing like what have experienced over the many years been around. As get older and wiser and learn more - learn that life is what you make it and you just have the one chance at it. Also it is the young, the inexperienced, and the vulnerable that fall for the aggressive marketing of religious organisations. The best funerals celebrate the person's life, not death. Not sure what was the point of this survey (which must have been well funded over the years). But when doing history degree all those years ago - it was made clear to us that wars had to be started and driven by a religion or ideology - and the worst wars - the ones with no end to them, no conclusion, were religious wars.
aaaaaaaaa
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2012
More older people are senile and thus believe in mystical beings. So from this study one could conclude that catholic countries have more age related mental health issues.
DaFranker
3 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2012
This is another pristine example of "scientists" conducting "surveys" with NO IDEA WHATSOEVER of how the "Scientific Method" is supposed to work, and who clearly are in dire need of a "Formal Logic 101" course, as right now they would fail its final exam horrendously.

The "findings" of this study are being interpreted as meaning that people "become" more believing in God over time. Did they stop to consider deceit? Social pressure? Social change? Looking around me, what I see is that older people have believed since they were young, and continued to do so. The young ones never believed, and presumably never will, as the old ones that don't never have and none that do ever have not - although I'm the first to point out that the above is a limited sample of the people I know.

Older people are also more subject to previous social pressuers, where not believing in god was "wrong". They might also simply say "yes" because you're annoying them, and that's the most expedient answer.
dschlink
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2012
Comparing age groups does not demonstrate the conclusion. Only comparing age cohorts AS THEY AGE would have any meaning.
ccr5Delta32
not rated yet Apr 19, 2012
Here's a link to the study
http://www.norc.o...port.pdf
In it are some change factors for comparison that might shed light on the questions raised in the comments by DeFranker et al . I'd have to say having briefly browsed the document , nothing conclusive
julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 19, 2012
So often, the nature of pareticular individuals betrays itself,despite their attempts to p[revent it. God haters tend to try to portray themselves as insightful, well meaning truth seekers, rather than resentful malingerers who simply enjoy being combative and negative. But consider DaFranker's "assessment" of the situation.
For example, DaFranker's insisting on the near universal lockstep conceit of the God haters to write the name of the Deity with a lower case "g", despite the fact that it is the name of a being and therefore, by the rules of English, requires a capial letter; it does no good to be disrespetful like that and, since it does no good, is nothing more than a case of inane, spite ridden self indulgence. These claim there is no God, yet go deliberately out of their way to insult Him!
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 19, 2012
Among the most significant faults, though, is that, despite DaFranker's defining what is an isn't reason, they literally "spit ball" a suggestion for an "excuse" for older people saying they believe in God, rather than provide anything legitimate. "They might also simply say 'yes' because you're annoying them, and that's the most expedient answer", DaFranker offers. Why is saying "yes" the most expedient answer? Why isn't saying "no" just as expedient? Wouldn't it be likely their questioner would have further information they wanted if you said "yes" or "no"? For that mater, if someone was annoyed, they could just as well call off the questioning! Note, though, the only ones who would say "yes" because they're annoyed and consider it "most expedient", not because it's the truth, are those who don't believe in God! Therefore, DeFranker is describing those who don't believe in God as eminent canidates for liars!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 19, 2012
God haters tend to try to portray themselves as insightful, well meaning truth seekers, rather than resentful malingerers who simply enjoy being combative and negative.
God lovers tend to try to portray themselves as insightful, well meaning truth seekers, rather than resentful prigs who simply enjoy being punctilious and negative.
For example, DaFranker's insisting on the near universal lockstep conceit of the God haters to write the name of the Deity
-One deity among many which just happens to be the one you favor
with a lower case "g", despite the fact that it is the name of a being and therefore, by the rules of English, requires a capial letter
HA! You sir are a world class pedant. As I have previously pointed out, if you were to show the proper respect for your god you would spell his name G-d so as not to inadvertently show him disrespect by deleting him in cyberspace.
http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm

YOU HAVE BEEN CORRECTED. I expect you to comply.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (14) Apr 19, 2012
So often, the nature of pareticular individuals betrays itself,despite their attempts to p[revent it.
Indeed. I can assume that most people would conclude, from reading just this one particular post of yours, that you have a large brick up your ass. Am I right? Did I guess right?

"Atheism is strongest in northwest European countries such as Scandinavia and the former Soviet states (except for Poland). The former East Germany had the highest rate of people who said they never believed in God (59 percent); in comparison, 4 percent of Americans had that response."

Isnt this a repeat of another recent article? I pointed out in that one that euros are atheists because their histories are full of atrocity done in the name of religion, and have learned their lesson, and are glad to be rid of it. What will it take here in the US? A healthy pogrom or 2, a nasty theocracy, an act of nuclear terrorism perhaps? That might do it. A glowing crater where Baltimore used to be, care of allah?
DaFranker
2 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2012
All this talk of "insults to God with a lowercase g" is bullshit. If you'd read more carefully, you'd have noticed that the closer to the bottom of my post you get, the more typos and grammatical / syntaxical errors there are. I was just paying less and less attention to what I was writing as I gradually came closer to already knowing the entire content of my own final post. The lowercase g was merely a simple mistake. I do not care whether it is capitalized or not, proper noun or not, or whether you have a brick up your ass ;)

The reason saying "yes" is more expedient is a case of simple social engineering. Saying "no" would more likely invite counter-questions, interrogatinos and wonderment, as social norms dictate that most old people should believe in God, and those that do not are "exotic" or "special" because they deviate from the norm. I would therefore, personally, say "yes" when surveyed if the asker annoys me. It is common wisdom among old people I know to conform to norm.
okyesno
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2012
Wisdom comes with age
Anorion
3.3 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2012
Wisdom comes with age

also comes , senility , Alzheimer , all kind of neuronal degeneration,....
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2012
Wisdom comes with age

also comes , senility , Alzheimer , all kind of neuronal degeneration,....
Also the realization that death approaches. Wanting to escape it becomes more important. As does the desire to be young again, when someone comes along and offers these things.
THENAMEIS_____
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
... lol This is true for all those who are afraid of Death...
I mean without death, there would be no religion. If humanity was without Disease, there would be no God to dream about or even care..
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2012
As is so often the case with those who promote New World Order sentiments, TheGhostofOtto1923 "argues" their case with mockery and vulgarity, to say nothing of deceit.
In fact, the tradition in Judaism of taking pains when writing the name of their deity is not from the Old Testament, their deity never called for it, it's entirely their own invention outside the Old Testament. That is purely arbitrary. Nor is it a facet of the New Testament. God never required that. God does not see that as the proper way to act. On the other hand, the English language requires that the name of an individual be capitalized.
And, as for the cause of wars, a common lie among atheists is that they are all caused by religion. The First World War, the Boer War, the American Civil War, the English Civil War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Thirty Years War, the French Revolution; the Revolutionary War, the French and Indian Wars, the Punic Wars, none were caused by religion.
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2012
And, if DaFranker is to be taken at their word, no negative reply by an older person to questions can be trusted. No survey which asked older people a yes or no question can be trusted! Did DaFranker ever question other information on other surveys as to whether replies by older people can be trusted?
rwinners
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2012
Always hedge your bets!
bredmond
5 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2012
I assume they mean the Christian god Jesus, right?
David_Tiffany
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2012
Belief in God is universal. atheistlegitimacy . blogspot . com
Tim_Riches
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2012
These claim there is no God, yet go deliberately out of their way to insult Him!
Your point about god being deliberately not capitalized is taken. It is a mark of disrespect I will cop to, but not for the reason you suspect. It is meant as an insult to believers, especially those who not only capitalize god, but also every word that refers to That Damned Fictitious Being. Nauseating.
Tim_Riches
2 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
So this means that the statistics will steadily rise in favor of atheism. I have understood for some time that religion would never completely die off, and further that the only sure way to reduce the number of theists in society is to simply wait for them to drop dead. We have all the time in the world, assuming Samson doesn't pull the damned temple down on all our heads!
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
Did the survey takers ask anyone what their DEFINITION of God was?
Just to qualify - my own definition is that we exist in - and are a fundamental part of - a living, evolving Universe that began with a physical singularity of some sort. Of which each and everyone one of us is a fractal representation of.
So, I guess I believe in one - kinda...
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
It's simple. Many people, as they age, begin to realize that their end is approaching. They hope for some prolonged existence, or, for some final judgement(i.e, generally, some absolution of all the evil shit they did while they were alive)
-- to justify their actions while they were here on Earth.

As if it isn't enough to simply be alive and do right by others...
this is reason enough, and all that we can expect while we're living, and doesn't require a pat on the back from god, allah, angels, houris, blah, blah, blah --if you were an evil, backstabbing, dog-eat-dog mofo in this life --then that's what you were; end of story.

Unfortunately, too many of us want to be able to say that "godDaddy said it was ok" in this life, or depend on their day-to-day evil being made pure as the driven snow by that same godDaddy on the other side, as a "told you so". Either way, a refusal to be a good person in the here and now. Simple, self-serving sophistry, bought and sold every day.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
As a corollary to that, do I need to point out the ever-increasing numbers of oldsters that die alone in state-run facilities, because their "benefits" have run out -just like their families?

Perhaps they --and you, dear reader-- should reflect upon that...
Instead of feeling all victimized, ostracized, and alone at the end, it might pay to consider just what sort of life you wished for others while you were in a position to effect some change in that outlook.

We rise or fall together. Belief or no in "god" doesn't improve the consequences of our ACTS here among the living.

kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2012
@julianpenrod And, as for the cause of wars, a common lie among atheists is that they are all caused by religion. The First World War, the Boer War, the American Civil War, the English Civil War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Thirty Years War, the French Revolution; the Revolutionary War, the French and Indian Wars, the Punic Wars, none were caused by religion.
Religion makes despotic dictators, only accountable to some god and not to the people. So your claim is patently false in that and a half-dozen other ways.
kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
Belief in God is universal.
In 1353 BCE, the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV came to power. He banned the worship of the other gods and demanded that Amen-Ra be worshiped as the head god. He changed the Egyptian religion from polytheism (belief in many gods) to henotheism (the acceptance that there are other gods, but worshipping only the supreme one). Also, from the Torah, we know that the Hebrews were not always monotheists, but rather started out as henotheists. After these henotheists left Egypt, they continued to end their prayers with the Egyptian word "amen," which is the same word for the henotheistic Egyptian religion's sun god. Therefore, it is possible that the Hebrews are the followers of Amenhotep's religion. Than given, then Amen-Ra and Yahweh are one in the same.
rwinners
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2012
"Belief is highest among older adults. On average, 43 percent of those aged 68 and older are certain that God exists, compared with 23 percent of those 27 and younger, according to the report."

I think it is highly likely that the difference in upbringing can account for this. I was not raised as my grandfather was, nor he his own grandfather.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2012
my own definition is that we exist in - and are a fundamental part of - a living, evolving Universe that began with a physical singularity of some sort. Of which each and everyone one of us is a fractal representation of -PseudoCynical

I thought that was a bullshit new-agey plot device when I heard it in Babylon5 as a Minbari creation myth, and I still do!
wwqq
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2012
'God' is not a name and should not be capitalized; god is a generic term, a synonym to deity. Even if you are referring to a specific god(e.g. the god, with the reader left to assume whether it's Allah, Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) it should not be capitalized.

The judeo-christian god is named "Yahweh"; that should be capitalized, but it is funnier not to and reveal what a massive brick up their arse some believers have.
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012
Belief in God rises with age

This might be misleading.
Such belief is more prevalent in older people, but it does not 'rise with age' (this seems to suggest that people will turn to belief as they get older - which isn't supported by the survey.)

So there is no real reason to argue that "wisdom comes with age" has anything to do with higher perecnetage of believers among the older part of the population. They could just have grown up in a time when belief was more prevalent, anyhow.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2012
I thought that was a bullshit new-agey plot device when I heard it in Babylon5 as a Minbari creation myth, and I still do!


Actually it's a belief that extends back well beyond the history that man has recorded. And it allows for all the variations in belief systems in existence, today. We're all here because of the variable nature of the Universe. Belief systems are just another representaton of that fact.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
my own definition is that we exist in - and are a fundamental part of - a living, evolving Universe that began with a physical singularity of some sort. Of which each and everyone one of us is a fractal representation of

Everyone is entitled to their own delusions (and I point out - again - that you do not have the least bit of clue what the word 'fractal' means. Stop using it. You're making a fool of yourself.)

But whatever you define for yourself: don't expect others to adopt it (or even agree with it). That's just stuff going on within your own head. And there it should stay.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
It is a commonplace of devotees of the lie that, when pushed, when all other claims are exposed as manure, they often end up having to "supporting" their tenets with palpable untruths.
kochevnik tries to maintain the lie that all wars are caused by religion by saying, "Religion makes despotic dictators, only accountable to some god and not the people", leaving it to the gullible to think, then, that only dictators have waged war. But the Revolutionary War was called by the Congress of the United States, the Spanish-American War was called by American President Theodore Roosevelt, as World War I was by Wilson, the Vietnam War by Kennedy, and, while ultimate, unremoveable leaders, the kings o England, who participated in starting so many wars, are not depicted as dictators, since they often bent to the will of Parliament.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
Trying to salvage pochevnik's point, shills can assert that it was dictators on the other side who caused the war. But, again, King George III was dependent on Parliament. The Spanish American War was an escalation of American intervention in the Cuban Independence Revolution, but they were not poorly treated and Spain was not a dictatorship. World War I was the result of a hodge podge of loyalties from Queen Elizabeth marrying her children all over the Continent playing out innumerably many local antipathies. The Boer War likewise did not include what are represented as dictators, the Bitish government and the rebel Boers who wanted independence for South Africa, but for economic reasons. During the Civil War, both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis served as presidents, not absolute rulers. And Nazi Germany was termed "Godless" or "godless" innumerably many times, as were all the Communist states the U.S. fought with.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
Of course, this wouldn't keep the unscrupulous God haters from saying that, even if it was things like greed or power that made various individuals cause wars, that motivation became their "god" and that makes it religion. Similar to Carl Sagan saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Leaving aside that "extraordinary" is left nebulous, it allowed skeptics to disavow evidence at will. If a scrap of flesh with chemical makeup that matched nothing on earth was found, it would be dutifully declared "not extraordinary enough", since it was only a tiny piece of tissue, therefore, it didn't prove anything! Only what they declared extraordinary enough would be permitted, and they would withhold that entirely arbitrarily to promote their interests. The same here. The New World Order shills will say, "Only religion causes wars, so, no matter what it is that preceded a war, that must be religious in some way!"
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2012
[everyone is entitled to their own delusions (and I point out - again - that you do not have the least bit of clue what the word 'fractal' means. Stop using it. You're making a fool of yourself.)
But whatever you define for yourself: don't expect others to adopt it (or even agree with it). That's just stuff going on within your own head. And there it should stay.
Please Enlighten me as to the correct definition of Fractal.
And then - tell me where, exactly, I am wrong.
I describe a belief in an evolutionary system (of ALL things). Anyone scientifically oriented should agree with that. I subscribe to no metaphysical control of the Universe's existance -merely that it exists and exhibits self control on it's own.
Explain why that is "new-agey" hogwash...
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2012
I only wish to define that which we can see and resist speculation on that which we cannot - there is nothing "outside" of this Universe that we have observed or can observe. All factual cosmic knowledge is contained here in this space that we can see. We don't have the means, other than imagination, to see anything beyond it. So quit trying to sound like you know some elemental secret that someone else doesn't.EVERYONE inately knows/understands what I am saying. To belittle it, belittles yourself.
And Fractal is - a subset within a set that is, for all intents and purposes, a replication of the ordinate set.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2012
As an "Older Person", I have no increased belief in a "god". I only have a belief in that the Universe and everything in it is infinitely more complex than the most intelligent athiest OR theist could ever imagine. And our "job" is to experience, observe and REMEMBER all the information we possibly can...
Czcibor
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
TheGhostofOtto1923:
Isnt this a repeat of another recent article? I pointed out in that one that euros are atheists because their histories are full of atrocity done in the name of religion, and have learned their lesson, and are glad to be rid of it.


Well, Otto, it seems for me that you are trying to ignore here an elephant in the room - yes, indeed in the eastern Europe was quite recenetly terribly oppressive system which outcome is still visible in belief systems of people. However, that was communism.

Analise the article - the highest level of atheism isn't in let's say Scandinavia but in former Eatern Germany. In Russia, according to this article now is even a serious reboud.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2012
kochevnik tries to maintain the lie that all wars are caused by religion by saying, "Religion makes despotic dictators, only accountable to some god and not the people", leaving it to the gullible to think, then, that only dictators have waged war.
The wars you cite were invariably made necessary because of overpopulation CAUSED by religions designed to maximize growth.
eastern Europe was quite recenetly terribly oppressive system which outcome is still visible in belief systems of people. However, that was communism.
And as I have pointed out in the past, there is little difference in religionist oppression and any other kind of despotism. If there had been 10 times as many cathars in southern France, the inquisition would have burned 10 times as many, along with the proportionate number of innocent Catholics.

And Nazis were just as religionist as any of them. Marx invoked the soul and the implication of eternal life as well. Divine aegis is universal in despotism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2012
-That religions uniformly claim the high moral ground, makes them all the more aggregious.
Leaving aside that "extraordinary" is left nebulous, it allowed skeptics to disavow evidence at will.
Any evidence at all for the existence of god would be a start. The thrill you get from the epiphany is not evidence as this can be explained in wholly physiological terms. You HAVE nothing else. No weeping statues, no stationary celestial bodies, no davidic/Solomonic kingdoms... nothing.
If a scrap of flesh with chemical makeup that matched nothing on earth was found, it would be dutifully declared "not extraordinary enough", since it was only a tiny piece of tissue, therefore, it didn't prove anything!
What's this - straw man? If that flesh was found and documented it would be revolutionary. So would the spear of destiny or the shroud of Turin. Alas the shroud is a fake, the spear a phony, the books all full of lies, all of which science has clearly demonstrated.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2012
I saw the term "god haters" used here. Atheists don't hate any gods. Nor do they hate leprechauns, fairies, unicorns or orbiting teapots. Gods have been the source of many great and wonderful tales in literature.

It has been said:
Religion is what we now believe,
Mythology is what we used to believe,
Fairy tales are what we never relly believed.

What is important to the future advancement of mankind is to understand that our moral evolution, due to our early technological ignorance, required adopting the notion of a god to fulfill our growing desire to explain things in nature. Before science, we needed to know what was going on, and most cultures could be content if they imagined a superior, magical, benevolent being was responsible. We atheists get that. It was human nature. It is a 'vestigial' notion that continues to slip away as we become ever wiser.

ccr5Delta32
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
I hate God and I hate Allah and all the others stupid gods that we've ever dreamed up
Religion : Big magic entity , apparently if you worship it in a particular way you get to stay at it's place for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever,,,,,,,, Only one snag .You have to die first

Heaven : Where you're free to do anything you wish to do but die

Hell : Where you're free to do anything you wish to do but die
MandoZink
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
I hate God and I hate Allah and all the others stupid gods that we've ever dreamed up

I guess you may have just proven me wrong! How can you hate an entity you don't believe in? I think it's the persistence of acquired belief in the face of current knowledge and rationality that should actually rile you up.

I was raised Catholic and took great solace in the spiritual warmth I felt as a human among humans. I can't be angry about that. I woke up when I began to learn about other religions. I began to understand that, regardless of whether you grew up under a belief system, the moral sense of commitment to others was learned from the good people and examples you experienced when young. Religion was just the best attempt we had to organize that in an understandable way. Religions, however, tend to get caught up in the act of aiming, and forget what they are aiming for. I am now an atheist with a deeper meaning than I ever thought could be had.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
As an atheist, you discover you have to answer to yourself for what you do to others. You cannot be unjust and expect to get off the hook by having an omnipotent supreme being to forgive you for the devils influence. It is YOU who must maintain integrity. That is what most Christians get completely backwards. Atheists can be much more understanding of what they must be as fellow humans. Mammy Yokum once said in an old cartoon strip: "Good is better than evil 'cause it's nicer! As a child that really made me think. That saying and do unto others are truly great rules to live by.

Also, being atheist saves you the emotional wreckage of having to reconcile the unpredictable actions of a magical mystery being instead of simply understanding what nature is. Now that I am a man of science, I know the randomness of events is always just statistical reality.
MandoZink
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
Imagine when humans finally realize that the existence of good and moral people are the results of good examples you experience in your upbringing. Churches project a subconscious divisiveness that infects the core mentality of supposedly "god-fearing" people who think they have the moral upper-ground. Raised Catholic, we were taught to love others, but that we were also lucky enough to be the one true religion. Understanding the inheritance of blind belief before you ever have the chance to think is important to our continued survival as humans on this planet we share.
ccr5Delta32
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
Now that I am a man of science, I know the randomness of events is always just statistical reality.


So what ! you've nothing to say and you've said it
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
Well, Otto, it seems for me that you are trying to ignore here an elephant in the room - yes, indeed in the eastern Europe was quite recenetly terribly oppressive system

Which is a point worth analysing: East Germany was reunified with the rest more than 20 years ago. The amount of believers has not risen- even though there is absolutley nothing from keeping people to turn towards belief.

It seems that 'believing' si just a social custom. If your parents believed then you'll adopt it out of social inertia more likely than not - not because there is some inner force that would make you believe.

As an atheist, you discover you have to answer to yourself for what you do to others.

Which is a much more honest way of life. Believers always have an excuse ("god made me do it" or somesuch), and the ycan just go "I'm sorry" and that's it.
We atheists must square everything with ourselves - no excuses.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
Please Enlighten me as to the correct definition of Fractal.

Fractal: Self similarity (or pattern similarity) accross scales.
No more. No less. Stop using it as a buzzword. That's just Bullshit Bingo.

And what does that even mean "a living, evolving universe"? That's just more Bullshit Bingo.
Evolution is the change of inherited traits from one bioligical generation to the next. Hydrogen atoms don't evolve. The universe doesn't 'evolve'.
And the vast majority of the universe does not consist of living material.

You think you're uttering some 'deep', philosophical, new-agey thoughts here - but you're just really making a fool of yourself by showing that you don't even know the most basic definitions of the words you use.

Enlightened enough or should I go on?
ccr5Delta32
5 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2012
The emperors new clothes of morality is like when all of any faiths just agree but never compare or question, the agreement is a silent one never spoken against or challenged but for those whispered only in doubt till it screams "Kill the unbeliever " ------ Thomas Aquinas . To kill the unbeliever bit can be attributed to saint Thomas the rest I am responsible for
It is a testable idea , Do all of any religions have just one moral action that is not common to us all
Religion hijacks the love for our children the loss of our dead ones and kills inquiry ,Let there be do doubt .---- Jesus , I think !
kochevnik
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2012
I saw the term "god haters" used here. Atheists don't hate any gods.
Yes it is the monotheists who are god haters. They believe in gods yet then deny the possibility or rights of other gods to exist. Well if intolerance is fine for gods, surely it is ok for people you find it easier to hate as well. That is the origin of their pernicious intolerance.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
kochevnik says the atheist lie that all wars are caused by religion.
When that was disproved, they switch to saying all wars are caused by dictators who follow their own god and that means religion causes wars.
When it's demonstrated that that is equally false, now, TheGhostofOtto1923 posits that all wars are caused by overpopulation due to religions that "designed to maximize growth". So the American Civil War wasn't due to defining state sovreignty or slavery, it was due to overpopulation? The Boar War was because there were too many people in South Africa, or in England? World War I wasn't due to entangled loyalties and innumerably many local resentments? And the U.S. initiated wa against Vietnam because we needed to move there?
And, consider, Muslim haters say their culture is one of unremitting death, even killing each other. So how could they be a religion that maximizes growth?
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2012
And my invoking of Carl Sagan's assertion, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", it is legitimate. Among other things, he and his anti-unconventional, "debunker" cohorts would not bring up such a thing as "extraordinary" when dealing with proof. Proof is proof. Proof is what establishes a statement, unequivocally, but, now, Sagan and his ilk were saying that they would not accept what establishes a statement indefatigably, true, they wouild require that it do so will bells and skyrockets. That statement is an open declaration that they would not accept what proves unconventional statements, only what "proves" them in ways they approve!
Not entirely not in keeping with leprous displays like, first, religion being blamed with all wars, then dictators being blamed for all wars; driven by their own gods; then overpopulation bred by religion being blamed for all wars. Each a stop gap method for bridging, even if illegitimately, faults in the earlier claim.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
MandoZink talks of seeing "god haters" referred to. In fact, they saw "God haters" in my comments. There's a difference. God, with a capital "G", is the name commonly applied to the Supreme Being, the single Almighty, certainly in Christianity, but also, informally, in other religions, as well, but thought of as an individual, not an abstract concept. The word "god", with a lowercase "g" is the term often used to represent a powerful, but not omnipotent being, often with a universal reach. Those who are god haters hate all such beings, God haters despise the single Almighty, and, because God is an individual, it isn't with any sort of detached, clinical like approach, but personally. It is imprecise and unscientific to use a generic term when referring to an individual, but they do it anyway, as an insult! They insult a being they insist does not exist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2012
So the American Civil War wasn't due to defining state sovreignty or slavery, it was due to overpopulation?
Correct. Slavery had become economically untenable due to swelling free pops and the industrial revolution. Slaves comprised 1/3 of southern pops. They couldn't be freed without collapsing the economy.

Up north overgrowth had caused city gangs to become political forces. The war conveniently shrank the workforce and enabled blacks to be safely dispersed. A Plan.
The Boar War was because there were too many people in South Africa, or in England?
England has always had a pop problem. Euro religions chronically caused the kind of growth which created near-constant war. It is little wonder we find them squabbling in far-off lands.

Tiny Britain could produce enough people to found the biggest empire ever in only a few gens. The boer war was part of the great African land grab where euros scrambled to secure the necessary resources to support themselves.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
World War I wasn't due to entangled loyalties and innumerably many local resentments?
Consider that, even though some 20M euro males died in ww1, there were again enough to stage an even bigger war in those same regions only a gen later. The only thing that ended this Cycle was the institution of family planning and the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS which occured since. Those people and their decendents to 3 gens were never born. Today peace reigns.
And the U.S. initiated wa against Vietnam because we needed to move there?
SE Asia is typical with an unremittment history of despotism and occupation by the overflow from cultures similarly enthralled with religion. After the French, the US, and the communists, indigenous religions were mitigated to the extent that family planning could be established.

Today VN is a stable and prosperous member of the world community. This is called Victory.
http://www.johnst...310.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2012
Muslim haters say their culture is one of unremitting death, even killing each other. So how could they be a religion that maximizes growth?
Chronic overgrowth results in chronic violence. Their religion is a more current iteration of your own. These religions evolve based on lessons learned. Islam in it's purest form religates women to the sole task of making and raising babies. They are kept covered and secluded to prevent comparison and temptation to stray.

This is a formula for maximizing growth not unlike the state of xianity a century or 2 ago when it was being used to fill up the earth. Islam is better at this, and better configured to incite violence once overpopulation begins to cause instability.

This is why religions are so much better than ordinary despotism at waging war . They were designed and refined for 1000s of years, expressly for the Purpose. This is also why all successful pseudo-religious regimes use aspects of religious doctrine. It is what Works.
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (8) Apr 22, 2012
TheGhostofOtto1923's technique is characteristically simple, misrepresent. Wherever possible, toss around claims and assertions built around the idea of overpopulation and, where not, just toss the word "religion" around.
Conspicuously avoiding mentioning the majority of conflicts I mentioned, as well as mentioning none that I didn't mention, TheGhostofOtto1923, for example, doesn't demonstrate an overpopulation cause for the First World War, they just say there were so many people that 20 years later, they could start another war and use that to "prove" Europe was overpopulated. Carefully avoiding that World War I included the U.S., Japan, British colonies and Russia, that Europe could fit into several times! And note that they dance around the fact that overpopulation played no part in Vietnam by fixating just on religion and leaving it to the devotees to convince themselves that the point was made.
Joez_Johnsmith
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2012
STOP! BIG DUH. BE AS HIM.-->Simply terminate obsolete practices! Belief in god damages and undermines Humanity. Be an epoch of artistic, scientific, humanistic, independent masters.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2012
@julianpenrod Conspicuously avoiding mentioning the majority of conflicts I mentioned...
Religion is the root of all evil.
Anorion
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Stephen Roberts
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
Religion is the root of all evil.
This is actually true, but there is still lotta religion even within mainstream science. With compare to the medieval society it's indeed a progress, but not everything is rose in the Kingdom of Denmark. The purposeful refusal in cold fusion for example is the reason of lotta suffering between people. The primary reason of this ignorance is to protect safe lives of physicists, who are involved in alternative methods of energy production. The contemporary cosmology serves just for safe grants and salaries of these people, not for the understanding of the Universe. We are still living in dark ages, when mainstream physics behaves as an enemy of the actual understanding and the human civilization.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
We are still living in dark ages, when mainstream physics behaves as an enemy of the actual understanding and the human civilization.
Well I can say on this board the ones who digg down my comments are almost exclusively non-scientists or mediocre engineers who grasp seemingly little outside their compartmentalized worldview. And of course phenomena exist right now which most scientists refuse to seriously study, for fear of career suicide. How many scientists have questioned publicly the mossad/CIA script handed to them by the lamestream media? Even after NIST themselves disavowed the government theories, leaving events without explanation?

At least there's enough diversity to keep alive competing memes so that when the opportunity to question does finally arrive, the doubting Thomases in the world will have their objections addressed. Meanwhile religion and sacred cows should be questioned as a red flag, signalling a facade that likely with time will not hold water
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2012
[qFractal: Self similarity (or pattern similarity) accross scales.
No more. No less.
And what does that even mean "a living, evolving universe"?
Evolution is the change of inherited traits from one bioligical generation to the next. Hydrogen atoms don't evolve. The universe doesn't 'evolve'.
And the vast majority of the universe does not consist of living material.

Enlightened enough or should I go on?

Well, you certainly told me.
My given definition of fractals says the same as yours, but with different words.
Lets switch the word "evolution" with "ordered change". Would that suit you better?
Look up the definition of Evolution in Websters, not just Wikipidia.
Funny thing is, we live in an ALMOST Universe, not an EXACT one. There will always be change and pattern similarity.
I'm not saying anything NEW - just what has always been there.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2012
"prove" Europe was overpopulated. Carefully avoiding that World War I included the U.S., Japan, British colonies and Russia, that Europe could fit into several times!
As usual wiki provides the answers.
http://en.wikiped...sualties

-Even Julian can see that the overwhelming casualties were euro indigene, and happened in Europe.
And note that they dance around the fact that overpopulation played no part in Vietnam by fixating just on religion and leaving it to the devotees to convince themselves that the point was made.
But Julian offers no statistics to back this up. Again I offer casualties via wiki
http://en.wikiped...sualties

A site for comparing:
http://necrometri...0c5m.htm
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2012
-History of course fails to acknowledge religionist overpop as the cause of war because it is written by people like Julian. But the statistics and common sense tell a different story. One need only compare pre-20th century conditions among religionist cultures throughout Eurasia, with those conditions now. The MOST SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in the stability of those regions, has been family planning, the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS, and the vast reduction in pop growth as a result.

This could not have happened in prewar and prerevolution religion-dominated cultures. Those cultures were destroyed by war, revolution, and communist martial law. The Process continues. It has the hallmark of a complex Campaign including well-Planned demographic Goals.

There julian I threw in some caps for you. If your god warranted similar acknowledgement then I would do the same. But alas he has not earned sufficient respect. I note that you do not accord yourself the same respect? Xian guilt perhaps?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
Lets switch the word "evolution" with "ordered change". Would that suit you better?

No, because that still means nothing.

There will always be change and pattern similarity.

Yeah, like a photon is similar to a rock. You may call this 'fractal' but it is no insight.

Listen: When you want to say something then make sure what you are saying carries information - that is somehow describes something. But you're just stringing meaningless buzzwords and delusional concepts togethet. Why don't you go to school and learn something about the words you use before using them? It's just so exasperating to see people rape scientific lingo the way you do.

And for the love of physorg...learn to use the quote feature.

Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2012
Well, been there 40 some odd years ago. English was a large part of my curriculum, if you must know. Found, at the time, that Man dislikes the order right in front of his face. And - too old to deal with that crap now.

This article was about the rise in belief of "God" as people age.
Didn't believe in one then and I don't now. I simply expressed what my life experiences have brought ME to, belief-wise. For me, that IS information. Point me to ONE other commentor who has anything real to say. I only read one that I felt worthy.
Fractal and Evolution are NOT science words. As a matter of fact, there was no real science in this article. It was merely a statistical summation.
That fact that someone single out my comments and exhibited irritation, is also fact - therefore information.
And - to only hold to one definition of a word or concept (when there are numerous others available)shows an unwillingness to learn and grow and understand ALL available information.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
Well, been there 40 some odd years ago.

Going there is not enough. Listening to what has been taught might have benefitted you.

}I simply expressed what my life experiences have brought ME to, belief-wise. For me, that IS information.

Good for you. Who cares besides you? This isn't facebook.

As a matter of fact, there was no real science in this article. It was merely a statistical summation.

You are aware that most all science papers contain statistical data of some sort? From physics to medicine to astronomy to biology to psychology to meteorology...? Math is probably the only science where you won't find statistics (other than in statistics papers and papers on game theory, of course)

to only hold to one definition of a word or concept (when there are numerous others available)shows an unwillingness to learn

No. It shows an unwillingness to let uneducated fools try to buzzword their way into serious conversation.

julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
How did all the overpopulation The GhostofOtto1923 describes occur when the "science" they respect says an average lifespan was only 45 years? But, in fact, TheGhostofOtoo1923 uses a common New World Order deceit, to blame on purely external influences the results of craven machinations by criminally powerful individuals. Was it an overabundance of people that caused work problems in the North before the Civil War, or corporate rich thugs funneling work only to itinerant, lower paid workers? When people are without funds, is it because there are too many people for the resources available, or because corporate rich crooks keep them on starvation wages, with no wages whatsoever being the only alternative? All the wars were caused by greed, not religion, TheGhostofOtto1923 is a shill for them! Before I blew the whistle on that atheist lie, they said religions caused wars simply out of hatred for those who didn't believe as they did, not by causing overpopulation.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
Telling that theGhostofOtto1923 accuses God of not earning respect. The average psychopath feels society does not deserve respect because they don't acknowledge that psychopath's perceived superiority to all else. That doesn't mean society hasn't and still doesn't have qualities worth respecting, it only means that the psychopath is so malignantly self-involved they can't perceive them. In fact, God does act, but those who don't deserve such beneficence do not receive it! If some do not experience particular influence by God, the crvaen and low deliberately intepret it as there being no God, those capable of looking at other than their reflection can ask if maybe they haven't earned such good will. Like the criminal who hates society for punishing them or the deviant child who despises their parent for not rewarding loathsome behavior.
Anorion
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
why religion ? why god or gods or spirits or whatever ?
what is their purpose? why you need to believe in imaginary beings?
all that is totally useless. we don't need those superstitions.
and why all the believers and creationists come post on science sites ?
don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
give us a break, no one care about your imaginary friend, keep him for you.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
In essence, The GhostofOtto1923 is indicating they accept the presence of God. They accept that there is a God, but they accuse Him of "not having earned sufficient respect". That admits, too, that it is a personal, antagonistic act on TheGhostofOtto1923's part, a deliberate act of insult. They accept that there is a God and are insulting Him. But, as with psychopaths, inherently criminal deviates, they don't consider that if they don't see God's Providence, it's bevcuase they have not earned it! It's all God's fault! Not theirs! Which only further fleshes out the clinical psychological profile of TheGhostofOtto1923 and their ilk.
wwqq
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
No julian; only in your diseased mind is otto, me or anyone else indicating that there is a 'presence of god'.

You need to believe that, just like I need to believe you are trolling to have some faith left in humanity.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2012
if a commentor has a personal prob with another commentors posts, it should be handled with a PM as opposed to on the general comment line. It is there they can detail their personal displeasure or whatever with a comment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2012
No julian; only in your diseased mind is otto, me or anyone else indicating that there is a 'presence of god'.
Very excitable isn't he? No julian I was being sarcastic re your god. But really, any self-respecting god wouldn't require fauning and genuflecting and WORSHIP from creatures like us. If he MADE us in his image I think he would expect us to have a little self-respect. 'Get off your knees!' he would say.

No, the people who invented your god are the ones who crave worship.
that psychopath's perceived superiority to all else. That doesn't mean society hasn't and still doesn't have qualities worth respecting, it only means that the psychopath is so malignantly self-involved they can't perceive them.
Huh. This kind of describes Jehovah when he decides to punish David for counting warriors by killing 1000s of his people... or keeping BOTH Moses and Aaron out of the holy land, for no good reason whatsoever. What an ass. Jehovah that is. Oh you too I guess.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2012
Oh I forgot to answer your questions
How did all the overpopulation The GhostofOtto1923 describes occur when the "science" they respect says an average lifespan was only 45 years?
'A species will tend to produce more offspring than can be expected to live to maturity.' Once we were able to hunt the creatures which were hunting us, we had a Problem. The next tribe became our main enemies.

Religions were able to maximize our tropical repro rate to outgrow the enemy and recover battle losses more quickly. The religions which were best at this are the ones which survived.
Was it an overabundance of people that caused work problems
Obviously.
is it because there are too many people for the resources available
Ask Malthus.
because corporate rich crooks keep them on starvation wages
Labor is a commodity. When labor forces swell you HAVE to pay them less because your competitors WILL.
greed blah
Nope it's too many people too fast, as it always has been.
bg1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2012
Older people were raised at a time when religion was a stronger presence in peoples' lives. Also, older people are closer to impending death and so are more frightened about death - religious belief helps cope with this fear.
bottomlesssoul
5 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
It fits what I've learned elsewhere about unlearning learned behaviors. It's very hard to do, so you have to wait for believers to die. I expect we'll see these bronze age belief systems evaporate over generations like we see happening with racism. You just can't reason with a believer.
okyesno
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2012
Faith as such will never die out. The best proof is the advent of atheism in the west. It requires more faith than a belief in God, because it blindly assumes the non-existence of God. A personal lack of faith in God is not a rational and verifiable position, but an emotional stumbling block.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
The best proof is the advent of atheism in the west.
Advent? Its been around a long time in one form or another.

It requires more faith than a belief in God, because it blindly assumes the non-existence of God.
Very popular lie from Christians, mostly from YECs. Its a complete fabrication they came up with in the last decade after being to demanding that people take Genesis on Faith.

There is no faith involved for most Atheists and especially for those that are Agnostics and mot Atheists are of the Agnostic type. There is no reason to assume there is a god and that is all that is going on.

Why do YOU believe in a god? Do you actually believe in Jehovah, and which version of Jehovah? The loving one that couldn't have possibly created parasites or one the Bible has murdering all of life that breaths or crawls on Earth that wasn't on one boat.

And when was that Flood?

Bet you don't have the guts to answer.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2012
The best proof is the advent of atheism in the west. It requires more faith than a belief in God,

Does it seem hard for you not to believe in Santa Clause? Or froodelfums (whatever they may be)?
Takes absolutely no effort fo me.
Not believing in gods takes exactly the same effort.

There's really no assumption necessary for ignoring the gods-issue - because it isn't an issue at all. it's a non-issue...like believing in pink elephants is a non-issue.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
.like believing in pink elephants is a non-issue.


You have to see Dumbo. The wondrous nature of Pink Elephants On Parade will teach you that they simply MUST exist.

Ethelred
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
Call me simplistic (or just simple, if you'd prefer), but it's been observed and postulated countless times in countless ways, that all things have a beginning, a static existence time-frame and an end.
Even Science has posited both the beginning(Big Bang) and the end of our universe(expansion into nothingness).
Philosophers, scientists, priests, wizards, wise men and mad men through-out history have posited and/or shown(via represent-ational experimentation and observation) - that every end will produce something else. (For the "real" men of science here - think thermodynamics).
This same process applies to ALL things - including matter, ideas and belief systems... Hell, even mathematic descriptions go through the process of change/refinement. One need only step back (or forward) a scalar level or two to reveal a bigger picture here...

And we'll skip referring to that particular pattern replication as fractal. Refer to it as ergodicly representative, instead. Or even metaphoric...
okyesno
1 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2012
The absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.

In fact, the only time absence of evidence points to a real absence is in those cases where one would reasonably expect there to be evidence but none is found. In case of Santa Claus, one would expect to find a workshop on the north pole and a presents delivering man riding around in a sled pulled by moose in the sky. Since those things do not exist, Santa Claus can safely be dismissed as a myth without invoking any absence of belief or belief in absence.

Atheism however does not have the blessing of such positive evidence of absence, and relies on negative mental projections (blind faith).
kochevnik
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2012
Atheism however does not have the blessing of such positive evidence of absence, and relies on negative mental projections (blind faith).
So your saying atheism is the same as christianity? You need to visit a mental health professional.
okyesno
1 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012
No, I am saying that atheism is blind faith in the non existence of God. To lead your life based on that kind of psychological deficiency ("personal lack of faith") is irrational to say the least. Atheism could well be a symptom of some underlying mental disorder.
Anorion
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
@okyesno

its like saying that health (absence of disease) is an disease.
there is no way that atheism (absence of faith) can be faith.

Science is certain of nothing and requires proof of everything..
Faith is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing..

Atheist: A person who believes in one less god than you do.

and btw only adults that are suffering from mental disorder are those who have imaginary friends.
Cynical1
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
No, I am saying that atheism is blind faith in the non existence of God. To lead your life based on that kind of psychological deficiency ("personal lack of faith") is irrational to say the least. Atheism could well be a symptom of some underlying mental disorder.

Isn't your perception of atheists a mirror image of a theistic blind faith IN the existance of a god?
Without proof either way, the whole issue needs to be dropped.
Instead, try focusing on knowing what is actually around you (via observation - both personal and scientifically derived by others). When you can know all of that, you will know what lies beyond. Until then, stop making stuff up and passing it off as reality...
Cynical1
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
And one other thing - it is not a personal LACK of faith. It is just faith in the things we can see, as opposed to an unproveable fairy tale.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
I am saying that atheism is blind faith in the non existence of God.

You don't need 'blind faith' not to believe in little green men from Mars. For the very same reason you don't need faith not to belive in gods.

Paraphrasing here: You may believe in a (christian?) god. But you have no problem not believing in thousands of other gods (Allah, Indian gods, Greek gods, ... ). you expend no amount of 'faith' on this (least of all 'blind faith').

When you understand this then you will understand that I simply believe in one god less than you do - and that without being any belief/faith necessary on my part.

For me faith has to be merited by something. E.g. I have faith (even blind faith) in people that have shown to be worthy of faith in them in the past.
Gods don't qualify by this standard by a long shot.
okyesno
1 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
You are confusing truth with observation, a common mistake.

Science itself relies on faith. Faith in the existence of reality, the reliability of our senses, memory and our ability to reason through the laws of logic. A host of other things are true, but we cannot observe them, like our thoughts. Scientism is self-refuting and there is every reason to believe there is more than just matter/energy in the universe.
okyesno
1 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
There is good reason to dismiss the existence of tooth fairies and things like the Greek gods. The reason can be ontology (these entities lack the attributes God needs to be God) or there is absence of evidence where one would expect to see evidence (for instance Santa Claus on the north pole with his reindeer and warehouses)

The existence of the Biblical God however is based on evidence (from philosophy, natural theology, human experience, Jesus Christ etc) and ontologically He matches up with what God must be (i.e. eternal, omnipresent, uncreated, almighty, good, spirit etc).
Anorion
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
okyesno just from reading bible you can count millions of people that your god killed, all the people drowned, egyptian baby, .... literally millions of victims.
good ? ... your god should be executed for crimes against humanity.
Cynical1
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
... He matches up with what God must be (i.e. eternal, omnipresent, uncreated, almighty, good, spirit etc).


In other words, your God has all the qualities that YOU feel must be there in order to qualify as a God. YOU defined it, so it must be.
That smacks of a created entity, designed to explain that which YOU cannot see or understand. That is not REAL proof - just a strong intuition that YOU have, that YOU have interpreted as such.
(I use YOU in the collective sense, meaning all people who share your belief)
And - There is no enmity or anger in my observations. I love many in my life who are "Christian" God believers. I just don't happen to agree with their acceptance limit to the "damned eternal curse" of "Why" questions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
The existence of the Biblical God however is based on evidence (from philosophy, natural theology, human experience, Jesus Christ etc) and ontologically He matches up with what God must be (i.e. eternal, omnipresent, uncreated, almighty, good, spirit etc).
You sir are blind deaf and dumb. ALL the evidence tells us that the events described in the bible DIDN'T take place. We have proof of this.

How can you examine this evidence and still make the statements you do? It is possible you make a living selling this lie. Or perhaps you are merely willfully ignorant. If so you owe it to yourself to investigate the mountains of evidence against the creature that you waste so much time and effort on, because and only because you want him to keep you around forever.

How can you continue to believe in a creature that promises you this, when all the evidence TELLS you he is not there? Again, the epiphany is not evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence. Consensus is NOT evidence.
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
Anorion,

Being righteous and just is part of being good. God as the Creator has the right to hold his creation accountable. The people that were killed paid the price they sought on their own through their deeds. Rebellion and sin have a price - death. God is a righteous judge and all those that received their punishment did so knowing fully well what they were doing.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
No, I am saying that atheism is blind faith in the non existence of God. To lead your life based on that kind of psychological deficiency ("personal lack of faith") is irrational to say the least. Atheism could well be a symptom of some underlying mental disorder.


The default position concerning "x" is that "x" does not exist UNTIL such a time that there is evidence of the existence of "x"...

Replace "x" with anything you like, then look up the term "null hypothesis".
okyesno
1 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
Ghost,

On the contrary. There is a mountain of evidence for God's existence and the truth of the Bible. Atheism cannot answer any of the important questions, and is based on zero evidence.

Worse, atheism leads to countless absurdities. Willfully believing in atheism usually is a sign of a mental problem or of a deluded mind, like some forms of religious insanity (such as islamic suicide bombers). In some of these atheists responses I can see evidence of a bordeline personality. Atheism can often be attributed to irrationality and insanity.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
You are confusing truth with observation, a common mistake.


You're confusing truth with lack of observation...
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
On the contrary. There is a mountain of evidence for God's existence and the truth of the Bible.


Name them.

Atheism cannot answer any of the important questions, and is based on zero evidence.


Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack of belief... lack of belief is the DEFAULT POSITION, it doesn't have to be based on anything.

Worse, atheism leads to countless absurdities. Willfully believing in atheism usually is a sign of a mental problem or of a deluded mind, like some forms of religious insanity (such as islamic suicide bombers). In some of these atheists responses I can see evidence of a bordeline personality. Atheism can often be attributed to irrationality and insanity.


This is all just abject stupidity. I hope you're trolling.
Anorion
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
Ghost,

On the contrary. There is a mountain of evidence for god's non existence and the lies of the bible. religion cannot answer any of the important questions, and is based on zero evidence.

Worse, religion leads to countless absurdities. Willfully believing in god usually is a sign of a mental problem or of a deluded mind, like some forms of religious insanity (such as islamic suicide bombers). In some of these religious responses I can see evidence of a bordeline personality. religion can often be attributed to irrationality and insanity.

Anorion
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
Anorion,

Being righteous and just is part of being good. God as the Creator has the right to hold his creation accountable. The people that were killed paid the price they sought on their own through their deeds. Rebellion and sin have a price - death. God is a righteous judge and all those that received their punishment did so knowing fully well what they were doing.


and what exactly could have egyptian babys have done to deserve to die ?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2012
Rebellion and sin have a price - death. God is a righteous judge and all those that received their punishment did so knowing fully well what they were doing.
Unfortunately since god doesnt exist it is his believers who must do the punishing and killing, and also the suffering and the dying on the battlefield and in the streets.

His inability to act on his own, despite what the books all claim, is more evidence that he isnt there.
On the contrary. There is a mountain of evidence for God's existence and the truth of the Bible.
Name one thing. ONE THING. And like I say, the thrill you get is only proof of physiology.
Atheism cannot answer any of the important questions, and is based on zero evidence.
'Atheism' is not an investigating agent. Believers and non-believers alike have combed biblical lands. What they have ALL found directly refutes the biblical record. Godders are seen walking away from archeological digs weeping and rending their garments. So tragic.
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
If atheism is both the default position as well as the mental state involving some deficiency (personal lack of belief molecules), then we can simply say that humans remain dumb until they finally discover that God exists. People who deliberately remain atheists despite all the evidence are technically dying in stupidity.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
we can simply say that humans remain dumb until they finally discover that God exists

Beg your pardon? Humans remain dumb until they develop insanity? How does that compute?
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
Atheism is all about emotion. Lack of faith has nothing in common with rationality, since it is a subjective feeling, an unverifiable brain state. God's existence should be based on examining the evidence, not by some personal mental defect. People who claim that atheism is some kind of gold standard have the intellectual depth of a goldfish (all goldfish have a lack of faith and are in fact atheists).
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
Atheism is all about emotion.

Atheism isn't about anything. It's the ABSENCE of a stance. The absence of any notion whatsoever on the issue of gods.

God's existence should be based on examining the evidence

Show it, then.

Believing in god is insane (definition of sane, BTW, is: "having or showing reason, good judgment, or sound sense". So calling believers in god in-sane is totally accurate)

Atheism isn't a 'gold standard'. It's like 'not having an imaginary friend' is no gold standard. It only matters when some unfortunate person you know is afflicted with believing in invisible rabbits.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2012
Trolling... /yawn
Anorion
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2012
I am not atheist, I am Polyatheist , there is many gods i don't believe in.
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
For those people who lack a stance: which of the following statements do you consider more plausibly true:

1. God does exist
2. God does not exist

And based on what evidence?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
1. God does exist
2. God does not exist

Like with unicorns: Until someone comes up with a clue (i.e. a reason to even consider this an issue... e.g. by finding some unicorn poo) there's really no point in going for a 'pro' god stance.

Is that an anti-god stance? As much as your everyday stance is an anti-unicorn stance.


And based on what evidence?

That's the entire point. The person who makes a claim first must ALSO present evidence as to that claim first.
Believers made the claim about gods first (because before they made that claim no one knew what a god was. Gods not being very evidently lying about in and of themselves) so the believers need to put up or shut up first.

Until they do we can sit back and watch the show.

It's like every theory (yes, even in science): If you have a new theory you should need to show that it works - not claim that others need to show why it doesn't.

Or do you need to prove to kids that their invisible friend doesn't exist?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2012
For those people who lack a stance: which of the following statements do you consider more plausibly true:

1. God does exist
2. God does not exist

And based on what evidence?
You forgot one godlover.
3. What effects the god-belief are having on the world.

-For which there is a GREAT DEAL of evidence.

Exhibit A
http://www.reuter...20120424

Exhibit B
http://latimesblo...sts.html

Exhibit C
http://phys.org/n...ill.html

-A new long list every day. Tragedy, hardship, bigotry, suffering, death and destruction due to the god-myth. It threatens our survival.

You can coddle religionists, get sucked into their endless arguments, and they win. Or you can tell them in no uncertain terms how you feel and what you think about their selfishness and their ignorance.
Atheism is all about emotion.
It is not but it absolutely SHOULD be.
Cynical1
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2012
If atheism is both the default position as well as the mental state involving some deficiency (personal lack of belief molecules), then we can simply say...

Wait - there are actually belief molecules? I'd LOVE to see the chemical makeup of THAT one...
EverythingsJustATheory
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
Christians say that if you believe and live a good life, you will go to heaven, where you will be incapable of sin. If you are incapable of sin, then you have no free will to commit sin. With no ability to make decisions, it really sounds more like HELL.
EverythingsJustATheory
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
We are created in god's image? So it waited 9B years to create our solar system, then another 4.499B to create humans, and this is all for us?

Dinosaurs dominated our planet for approx 185M years. We have been around as huminoids at most 5-7M years and as modern humans 200K years. Seems to me he liked dinosaurs a lot more than humans.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2012
@okyesno Atheism is all about emotion.
Computers are atheist by default. Where is their emotion?
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
We are created in god's image? So it waited 9B years to create our solar system, then another 4.499B to create humans, and this is all for us?

Dinosaurs dominated our planet for approx 185M years. We have been around as huminoids at most 5-7M years and as modern humans 200K years. Seems to me he liked dinosaurs a lot more than humans.


Dinosaurs are a trick of the devil don't you know?
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2012
" As much as your everyday stance is an anti-unicorn stance."

If unicorns would exist we would expect to see evidence in nature. We don't, so we have proof they do not exist. Unicorns are a bad analogy to God however who is by definition immaterial. The existence of God is based on different evidence than the existence of material things like unicorns, FSM, tooth fairies etc.

So which statement is most plausibly true according to you?

1. God does exist
2. God does not exist

And what evidence do you have? Or are you afraid to make a choice perhaps...
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
@okyesno reported for spamming
Cynical1
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2012
Atheism is all about emotion. Lack of faith has nothing in common with rationality, since it is a subjective feeling, an unverifiable brain state.[p]
As is a belief in a creator.

[p]God's existence should be based on examining the evidence, not by some personal mental defect.[p]

What science is attempting to do.

[p]People who claim that atheism is some kind of gold standard have the intellectual depth of a goldfish (all goldfish have a lack of faith and are in fact atheists).

And - WHEN was the last time you had a conversation with a goldfish, again? Your comment as to any faith they may have was totally assumptive and therefore - unverifiable.
okyesno
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2012
Kochevnik: so predictable and feeble minded. Your atheism and your lunatic consipracy theories do not become any more rational because you call in the physorg gestapo.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2012
There is three types of faith:

1. Reasonable faith. This is faith based on some form of evidence. For instance, a belief in the existence of God could be based on some personal experience or rational argument like the ontological argument or fine tuning argument. Established scienctific theories like gravity would also fall under this category.
2. Blind faith. This is belief without any form of evidence, such as the existence of Zeus, Shiva or the tooth fairy.
3. Delusional faith. This is blind faith despite evidence to the contrary. A good example would be atheism. The non-belief in God goes hand in hand with accepting many absurdities about the universe, life and reality.
Terriva
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
I can't understand, what the logically thinking people are finding attractive about all these neverending religious discussions. To make things perfectly clear, I do consider of versions of faith (no matter whether it deals with God or for example Big Bang model) a sign of apparent mental dysfunction. Just one minute discussion about someones faith makes me dumber, because it prohibits me to think rationally during it.

OK - lets admit, some people are believing in God and it's their own personal problem and mental disability - but this is everything, what I'm willing to consider about it. Everything else about faith is as subjective BS, as the religion itself by its very definition.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2012
There is three types of faith:

1. Reasonable faith. This is faith based on some form of evidence.


This is called belief. Belief is based on evidence, faith is distinct from belief in that it is NOT based on evidence.

Why do you creationist and religionist idiots always want to make faith a simple synonym for belief? How would you distinguish faith from belief, and if you can't why have two words for the same thing?

No, faith is UNQUESTIONING belief... with, without, or in spite of the evidence.
DaFranker
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
@okyesno: Do you believe in the existence of the magical Gremlin Clan of Solvitall?

Because, see, empirical evidence suggests that a devious clan of gremlins exist in the universe. Why? Why, because EVERYTHING can be explained with them, of course! Why does graphene behave the way it does? Tiny invisible gremlins appear and move the particles around like that just to confuse us. Why does nature tend towards equilibrium? Why, because gremlins are lazy, of course! What is truly gravity? Well, of course, it's gremlins getting tangled up in stuff and dragging it with them as they move towards eachother, since they're such a friendly clan!

There is no more conclusive evidence of "God" than there is of gremlins. If you postulate that it requires a conscious decision to enter denial of faith in this "god", then you are also making the claim that anyone who doesn't believe in gremlins - or ANYTHING that might be "suggested" by observation - is consciously acting to deny all of those things.
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
Let's examine the claim that tiny gremlins are responsible for the universe. First of all, gremlins are made of matter, but the universe came out of nothing including all the matter in it. So gremlins cannot be the cause of the universe, because something cannot be it's own cause (logical contradiction).

Secondly, gremlins fail the God test: they do not have the attributes that God must have to be God. They fail ontologically because they are neither immaterial nor almighty nor omnipresent nor allknowing.

Thirdly, of tiny gremlins would be part of the material universe, then we would expect to see evidence of their existence. They need food, shelter and would have a mating ritual of some kind. Since that evidence is lacking, it is very unlikely they exist.
Anorion
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
you have any proof/evidence that gremlins are made of matter and are not immaterial ?

you say:
"So gremlins cannot be the cause of the universe, because something cannot be it's own cause (logical contradiction)."

i say:
"So god cannot be the cause of the universe, because something cannot be it's own cause (logical contradiction)."

ontologically your god is a baby killer and genocidal monster, hence he cant be good, he created devil and evil it self so he cant be benevolent, he never prevent evil like holocaust or Darfur or Rwandan genocide or pedophiles, so he must be evil or impotent. so he fail god test, your god ain't god but just some imaginary "friend" , a bad one.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
If I look up the definition of a Gremlin, then they seem to be made of matter. They are creatures that change from good to evil when they come into contact with water (which is a material).

God is not material but immaterial. He is not part of the universe, So it is perfectly ok to have an immaterial God as the cause of the material universe.

There is no logical contradiction between God being good and the existence of evil in the universe. God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of good as intended by God. God however created humans and angels with a free will. The existence of evil is adequately explained this way.

The fact that God killed people is His right being the heavenly judge. God makes the rules and people that sin against Him pay the price, just as criminals are punished based on the law.
Anorion
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
we are not talking about those gremlins, we talk about special gremlins, your definition doesn't apply.

no its not ok, cause there isn't any evidence or even reason that an such entity exist or should exist.

as it was intended god ? so you admit he wanted the evil to exist.
your god must be really retarded to create evil , create people with free will to choose, and then punish them cause they didn't choose what he wanted them to choose.

nothing explained that way, if he was good he could prevent / suppress evil but he don't, so he like to see people suffer.
if you have kids at home, you don't live acid or poison in their room and count on their free will to not to drink it, instead you place it somewhere where they cant get it. your god is a sadistic bastard.

and you still didn't told me what exactly as sin could have egyptian newborn babys commit to deserve to die ?

okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
Until you provide a clear ontological definition of those Gremlins I just refer to my earlier comment. If the Gremlins are immaterial they most closely resemble demons (fallen angels), which are spiritual beings. Their existence would in fact support the Bible. Angels are able to interact with matter and spacetime.

God did not create evil, but good. The evil is the consequence of willfull disobedience to God's good laws. Humans knew the consequence of sin beforehand and one should not complain like you do. If you kill someone where you live, you will go to prison, free will or not.

The Egyptians had received many warnings before God executed His punishment by killing the firstborn son in every family. If they had loved their children, they would have relented and simply let the enslaved Hebrews go free. It was Pharaoh who abused and ensalved a whole people, but I don't hear you complain about that, which proves your hypocrisy.
DaFranker
5 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
okyesno: You have very little knowledge the nature of knowledge: http://en.wikiped...temology

Those gremlins, whether material or not, could be deliberately preventing us from seeing any evidence, and following our thoughts (because they're magical) to see where we will look for the next evidence, promptly removing it and planting instead falsified "evidence" of your god. They may still be material, and not have created the universe. The fact that we do not see evidence of either their existence OR of their non-existence "proves" that they must be there to hide such evidence.

Whether they would have created the universe or not is IRRELEVANT when establishing whether THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE.

You cannot define a virtual universe (which you are) using unverified "facts" (which you are) and posit within this definition a "god" (which you do) and then use this definition to prove that there is a "god" (that is required for this proof to even work).
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
Even if we would accept that those Gremlins could exist, the unlikely combination of attributes they have combined with the fact that they seem to lack any clear origin or purpose makes their existence highly implausible.

Based on the available evidence the existence of an immaterial ominpotent God who is responsible for all the matter in the universe is much more plausible than a bunch of ad hoc assumptions about Gremlins.

If Gremlins deliberately delude our minds we will never be able to find out the truth of them, and this also invalidates your own conjectures about them. So the Gremlin theory is self-refuting. Conversely, God can be known though His Word in the Bible and the personal experience of His presence, which brings a lasting peace and joy.
Anorion
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
i still don't understand why he killed those childrens, its adults who sined, not childrens, so he should have executed adults not children, your god from bible is clearly an sadistic idiot.

so he killed those kids cause adults enslaved jews but why he did nothing when nazis did much worst few decades ago ?

based on the available evidence the existence of an immaterial omnipotent gremlin who is responsible for all the matter in the universe is much more plausible than a bunch of ad hoc assumptions about god.

and by what right you assume the bible is a true word of that supposed god of yours and not quran ?

DaFranker
5 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
So the Gremlin theory is self-refuting. Conversely, God can be known though His Word in the Bible and the personal experience of His presence, which brings a lasting peace and joy.


It does NOT invalidate my conjecture. See the link I put about knowledge. We may never *know* of it, yet it may still be true. One may believe in it, but it must be absolutely true, absolutely believed, absolutely necessarily true for its belief, and justified, for it to be known. You seem content to jump from one of these to another seemingly at random without concern for truth until your original hypothesis is reached.

"His Word" in the "Bible" are both inventions. Every single historically-proven existing "version" or "copy" of it was proven to have been written by humans. "His presence" is, by all evidence, imaginary in the subjects. All its "effects" can more easily be attributed to the verified Placebo effect ( http://en.wikiped...guation) ).
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
The absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence.
True. But there should be evidence for the Great Flood and the order of Creation that is in Genesis. Either of the orders.

There is no such evidence. There is evidence to the contrary. In this case then an absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

where one would reasonably expect there to be evidence but none is found. In case of Santa Claus,
And for that flood and for the order of Creation.

Atheism however does not have the blessing of such positive evidence of absence, and relies on negative mental projections (blind faith).
No. It goes on the absence of evidence which is in no way a matter of faith. Especially in this case where evidence should exist and doesn't and evidence that shouldn't exist does. That is there not a bit evidence for the Great Flood and there is evidence that that the order of evolution does not match the order of Biblical Creation.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
Atheism could well be a symptom of some underlying mental disorder.
Or it could just be based on the actual physical evidence and of course the amazingly low level of idiocy you are posting.

You are confusing truth with observation, a common mistake.
You are confusing your posts with actual logic. Truth is that which really is as opposed to what someone claims it is despite the evidence.

Science itself relies on faith.
Lie. It relies on evidence and reason.

Faith in the existence of reality,
Assuming the opposite is both futile and tends to shorten ones lifespan.

the reliability of our senses
Lie. Testing is done with equipment and with multiple methods.

memory and our ability to reason through the laws of logic.
Memory and print. And the rest is as opposed to what? Going a ancient book, your word, fake logic, and ignoring evidence.

You can go the ignorance route if you want. I will go on the evidence and reason.>>
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
Well, my reply would be that something that can never be known, is very unlikely to exist. One of the attributes of truth is in fact that it generally can be known, either through observation or deduction. It is a basic human belief that our reality is cogent and can be uniformly known in a rational and meaningful way. The fact that your Gremlins fail to adhere to this basic concept of reality makes them implausible.

In addition I have shown in my previous posts that they are also logically inconsistent, least parsimonious and self-refuting with regard to espistemology. But since you seem so preoccupied with them: do you believe they exist, and why (not)?

A Christian calls the Bible the Word of God because we believe the writers were inspired by God. The God of the Bible wants to reveal Himself to humanity, and He did this through His Word and Jesus Christ who is the Word made flesh. The placebo effect is a poor explanation because people's response to God goes way beyond it.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
A host of other things are true, but we cannot observe them, like our thoughts.
Actually I can observe my thoughts. If you can't observe yours that would explain a lot.

Scientism is self-refuting and there is every reason to believe there is more than just matter/energy in the universe.
Do you lie to everyone that much? Science, that bullshit word you are using, is self checking. There is evidence that there is more than matter/energy in the Universe. There are laws and limits and constraints as well. There is no evidence for magic or Jehovah.

There is good reason to dismiss the existence of tooth fairies and things like the Greek gods.
Actually no using your thinking. Just the total lack of evidence for them and you claim that is not enough.

The reason can be ontology (these entities lack the attributes God needs to be God
That is just argument by definition instead of by facts.>>
okyesno
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2012
Anorion,

There are no innocent people. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory. But the love of God was manifested when Jesus Christ died on the cross for all sin and was resurrected to life. God gives every human (Jew and gentile) a chance to repent and be reconclided to Him. Sinners will die and spend eternity in hell, which they deserve based on a desire to rebel against God.

The reason I do not think the quran is the Word of God is because it fails completely regarding the historical Christ. The apostles were there when Jesus lived and they all testify He died on the cross. Even all the available secular sources state that Jesus died on the cross. Only the quran denies this fact based on the visions of a single man (Mohammed) some 600 years later. Based on that the quran can be dismissed as a credible source or Word of God.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
or there is absence of evidence where one would expect to see evidence (for instance Santa Claus on the north pole with his reindeer and warehouses)
That doesn't cover the gods of the Greeks. It does cover of Genesis.

The existence of the Biblical God however is based on evidence (from philosophy, natural theology, human experience
No. That isn't evidence. PHYSICAL evidence for that god is nonexistent.

Jesus Christ etc)
A human being that may have existed but the Bible does NOT claim he was a god. You are doing that but the Bible does not.

e matches up with what God must be (i.e. eternal, omnipresent, uncreated, almighty, good, spirit etc).
No. He matches up with humans. He never even claimed to be a god. You and others made that up.

Now for me an all powerful god that is also alleged to be beneficent does not match the god in the Bible at all. Doesn't match up with life on Earth either. Parasites would not exist with that sort of god.>>
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
Ethelred,

There are a lot of logical fallacies in your "replies" and much low hanging fruit for someone else there. I will refer you to anyone with a bit more time to teach you the basics. Be blessed.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
Being righteous and just is part of being good.
Yes, so why is Jehovah portrayed as a psycho?

God as the Creator has the right to hold his creation accountable.
So when will he take responsibility for the parasites?

The people that were killed paid the price they sought on their own through their deeds.
Lie. The murder of the first born in Egypt included infants. Thus they had no deeds to punish.

Rebellion and sin have a price - death.
So everyone has rebelled or sinned, even the dead infants. That is such a lie.

God is a righteous judge
A psycho monster is what murdered all the first born of Egypt. Except no such thing happened and there was no murder by flood either.

all those that received their punishment did so knowing fully well what they were doing.
Right, the infants knew exactly why they were murdered. No that is another lie. Of course they weren't drowned in a flood that never happened either.>>
Anorion
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
you carefully avoid to answer my questions, that show how much your a liar just like 99.99% of those who follow religions and believe in imaginary beings.
maybe your childrens are sinners and deserve to die by your god, but don't talk for everyone else.
yeah an dude called joshua or some shit liek that got killed by romans on a cross for making unrest like so many others rebells and criminals that romans killed in that time. that makes him in no way some god or stuff, his mom got banged by some random guy and to avoid her to get stoned they invented the story of getting pregnant as virgin.
and there is like over 1.5 billion muslims who would disagree with you on your version about quran.
and how and good god could send people in hell for eternity, there is nothing an human can do in a life time to deserve that.
eternal hell for not believing and praying ? thats kinda overkill
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
There is a mountain of evidence for God's existence and the truth of the Bible.
Tick tock. Produce a bit of it. Something that proves the Great Flood. Actual physical evidence.

People who deliberately remain atheists despite all the evidence are technically dying in stupidity.
Evidence you have been unable to show. Because there is no such evidence.

For those people who lack a stance: which of the following statements do you consider more plausibly true:

1. God does exist
2. God does not exist

And based on what evidence?


Neither. There may be a god. There may not be a god. Some gods are testable. YOUR god is one. There is no evidence that it exists and there should be such evidence. Funny how you claim it exists and ignore the requests to produce it.

because you call in the physorg gestapo.
Yes Henrik we know you have been banned before. You earned it by lying and spreading hate as you just did again.>>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2012
Even all the available secular sources state that Jesus died on the cross.
There are no reliable secular sources which mention Jesus at all, which I suspect you know. The additions to Josephus are proven to be added long after the fact.

The Jewish historian also documents the kingdoms of Solomon and David which we know did not exist, and so we can conclude that he was a propagandist like the bible authors... and yourself.

There IS no evidence for your prophet besides what we find in the bible and in the apocrypha which even the church rejects. Most churches anyway.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
1. Reasonable faith. This is faith based on some form of evidence.
Which leaves you out.

rational argument like the ontological argument
No such thing.

or fine tuning argument.
No such thing. WE are fine tuned for the world we live in and not actually fine tuned either. We clearly evolved and have some rather bad results from that evolution.

Established scienctific theories like gravity would also fall under this category.
That is way beyond faith.

2. Blind faith. This is belief without any form of evidence, such as the existence of Zeus, Shiva or the tooth fairy.
You forgot Jehovah. There is evidence against it and none for it.

3. Delusional faith. This is blind faith despite evidence to the contrary.
Jehovah fits that.

A good example would be atheism.
No that is you lying. Again.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
The non-belief in God goes hand in hand with accepting many absurdities about the universe, life and reality.
Well the non-belief in Jehovah is based on the lack of evidence for it AND the absurdity of claiming the god is loving AND created parasites.

God did not create evil.
HERETIC. VILE DENIER OF THE BIBLE. EVIL PERNICIOUS MISCREANT.

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

The Bible disagrees with you on that.

The Egyptians had received many warnings before God executed
You mean murdered. He HARDENED Pharaoh's heart AFTER Pharaoh chose to let the People go.

If they had loved their children, they would have relented and simply let the enslaved Hebrews go free.
I see so they were ALL Pharaoh. No that isn't right. There was only one Pharaoh AND it was Jehovah that hardened his heart at the end.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
but I don't hear you complain about that, which proves your hypocrisy.
That is you evading the alleged murder of the infants. However I am not complaining about that because that is not the issue. If it was AND I had evidence that it was true THEN I would complain. There is the possibility that the Israelites were also the Hyxos and thus had enslaved the Egyptians for a generation or two.

Conversely, God can be known though His Word in the Bible
The Bible makes no such claim. YOU make the claim. The evidence is against the Bible for Genesis at the very least.

and the personal experience of His presence, which brings a lasting peace and joy.
I heard that lobotomies do that as well.

Ethelred
panorama
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
God can be known though His Word in the Bible and the personal experience of His presence, which brings a lasting peace and joy.


Mark 11:13-14, "And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon; and when he came to it, he found nothing bu leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. An his disciples heard it."

Mark 11:20-21, "And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.

And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou curedst is withered away."

Last peace and joy my ass, Jesus/God/Holy Spirit entity was an ecological terrorist. Cursing fig trees for not making fruit in the off season...how asinine.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
Ethelred,

There are a lot of logical fallacies in your "replies" and much low hanging fruit for someone else there. I will refer you to anyone with a bit more time to teach you the basics. Be blessed.
So many you are unable to show a single such fallacy. In other words you don't have a single rational bit evidence or reason to support you in any way. Which is usual for you Henrik.

Now here are those question you don't like.

When was the Great Flood?

Where is some evidence, physical evidence, that it actually happened? You keep claiming there is evidence to support the Bible but you never post any.

Ethelred
Cynical1
5 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
This thread has been entertaining to say the least.
By virtue of his very name, okyesno lacks any true conviction in his posts. This results in the deduction that he/she/it/god/whatever is just arguing to argue - which, funny enough, is pattern replication of the god he purports to believe in.
Also funny is the fact that certain humans make statements of fact and take action (sometimes murderously) based on voices in their head telling them they are in the right/good.
BTW, were you aware Hitler considered himself a good Christian?
Anorion
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
This thread has been entertaining to say the least.
By virtue of his very name, okyesno lacks any true conviction in his posts. This results in the deduction that he/she/it/god/whatever is just arguing to argue - which, funny enough, is pattern replication of the god he purports to believe in.
Also funny is the fact that certain humans make statements of fact and take action (sometimes murderously) based on voices in their head telling them they are in the right/good.
BTW, were you aware Hitler considered himself a good Christian?


I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
Cynical1
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
Based on okyesno's definition of a god (more accurately, HIS god),
might it not be someday inferred that Hitler was a god's way of punishing the Jews for THEIR sins against he/she/it?
(No semitic offense intended - just askin...)
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
Anorion,

I disagree that I avoided your questions, I addressed them all as much as possible. A bit sad that you think it necessary to resort to verbal abuse now. Not very rational I say.

As far as the other questions, I am quite happy to reply those (about hell being fair etc), but I think that the usual Physorg terrorists here will spoil any meaningful debate by trolling around.
Anorion
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
okyesno.
your so called answers are not satisfying.
never, ever, will "god did it" will be an satisfying answer to anything, i don't even consider it as answer.
as to my language, i am bored of religious fanatics who try always to stick their religion in every aspect of human life, and wage a war against knowledge and science cause it disproof their superstition. yes i am tired to be polite with people like you, who present their religion as the only real truth, above science, above knowledge, above other religions or philosophys, so don't expect any sympathy for your faith from me.
and the only terrorists are creationists and religious fanatics, who oppress other who don't believe in same thing like them. it was like that since thousands years, crusades, inquisition, islamic conquest, even today there are theocracys around world who oppress atheists , and not to mention all the religious fanatics everywhere , i am tired of you and your god and your superstitions and ...
Anorion
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
you religious people are just spreading lies, ignorance, superstitions, violence and hate.
religions is like chain and iron ball attached to the feet of humanity, world would be so much better without it
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2012
I disagree that I avoided your questions, I addressed them all as much as possible. A bit sad that you think it necessary to resort to verbal abuse now. Not very rational I say.
Religionists enjoy using sanctimony as a way of baiting their adversaries. It is what jesus would do, yes? It is passive aggression, intended to enrage.

I know it makes you FEEL morally superior when others get angry. But you must admit it is a particularly small and distasteful way of gaining advantage in an argument.

You guys are so transparent.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
you religious people are just spreading lies, ignorance, superstitions, violence and hate.

I think we have to distingusih two things here:

Religion and belief.

The former is merely a social/tribal phenomenon, and as such particularly suited for being abused.
The latter is merely a personal delusion/insanity.

Where the two meet is where the problem lies: The occasional madman with his personal belief isn't a problem.
People coming together for a common goal isn't a problem.

But a large numbers of delusional people who are open for easy manipulation organized as a system - that is a problem. And that is what we have to put a stop to.
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
Anorion,

You may not realize it, but you also elevate your own truth of atheism above everything else. So your criticism levelled at religious people is simply fallacious, for you could be wrong about God. As far as religious intolerance goes, at times atheists have tried to impose their views on others as well, causing millions of deaths and suffering. All this just proves is that humans are inherently sinful and in need of redemption.

I have not waged any war agianst Science. Science is perfectly ok, but science is not the same as truth. Science is first and foremost a human system, an invention. It is based on a belief in our ability to reason and think about reality. But human thought is limited, and so is science. Science relies on many things it cannot prove nor observe. My conjecture is that science itself proves there is a God as the origin of rationality, and that belief is and attribute of both religion as well as science.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
I have not waged any war agianst Science. Science is perfectly ok, but science is not the same as truth.

And no one said it was. You're waging a war against an imagined enemy.

My conjecture is that science itself proves there is a God as the origin of rationality

Why is that necessary? What is the alternative to being rational in some form or another for ANY entity subject to evolution? There is none.
Again you are waging a war (or in this time inventing a 'conjecture') where none is needed.

It's a bit like saying "why is there something instead of nothing". And the simple answer is: Because 'nothing' is a contradiction in terms. It cannot BE. Because then there would be a property tp it (i.e. 'being') which would make it not nothing.
So the existence of something (e.g. a universe or whatever) does not need a cause. That something exists at all is without alternative.

okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
"So the existence of something (e.g. a universe or whatever) does not need a cause"

That is a very unscientific statement. If you would hit your own face very hard, the bump that develops is caused by your slap, it is not uncaused. (Unless you are into some form of new age. In that case feel free to slap yourself again.)

As far as the universe is concerned, it is like the bump, it needs a cause because it began to expand at some point. And of course that cause it not nothingness. You see, you commit an obvious fallacy by assuming the universe is all there is. That is simply presupposing atheism. Before the universe, there was not nothing but God existed, and He is the logical cause of the universe, not nothingness.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2012
That is a very unscientific statement. If you would hit your own face very hard, the bump that develops is caused by your slap, it is not uncaused.

The problem with clinging to causality (and essentially a deterministic world view) is that it has been shown to be not the case. Causality only works (to a good approximation) in macroscopic systems. go down to the quantum level and you're deeply in the realm of probabilities - not causalities. and this is NOT because we aren't looking with a big enough magnifying lens but because it seems to be fundamental to things. stuff like the uncertainty principle doesn't just go awy by looking more closely (actually looking more closely makes it even 'worse')

The other problem with clingin to causality is: you need a first uncaused cause. That means that sticking to causality already leads itself ad absurdum. It's a contradiction in terms.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2012
You see, you commit an obvious fallacy by assuming the universe is all there is.

No. I presuppose no such thing. Moving to multiverses or branes or whatever doesn't change the argument one bit.
If our universe is a 'bounce' from a previous universe (as Penrose argues) or due to a collision of higher dimensional branes or whatever other theory you favor (INCLUDING one where our universe is the only one there is): if you cling to causality then the "I need a first cause"-issue doesn't go away.

Before the universe, there was not nothing

Ask yourself this: How can there be a 'before' if there is no time. Time is a property of THIS universe (space-time to be exact). Time does not exist in and of itself without a frame of reference. You're presupposing properties (like time) where they don't apply.
Cynical1
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
As far as the universe is concerned, it is like the bump, it needs a cause because it began to expand at some point. And of course that cause it not nothingness. You see, you commit an obvious fallacy by assuming the universe is all there is. That is simply presupposing atheism. Before the universe, there was not nothing but God existed, and He is the logical cause of the universe, not nothingness.


Ok. So, following your causality theme, where did your god come from?
Science/atheism, does not assume that the Universe is all there is - it just states that until some tangible proof is shown, they are just not going to make a statement/commitment of belief.
Kinda like Columbus and that "Earth is flat" thing a few hundred years ago...
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
Antialias,

I do not see which premise you are attacking now. With which of them don't you agree:

1. The universe (all time, space, matter, energy) began to exist
2. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
3. The universe has a cause (from 1,2)
4. The cause of the universe cannot be itself or nothing
5. The cause of the universe is an immaterial, uncaused, timeless, entity (God, from 3,4)
kaasinees
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
Ask yourself this: How can there be a 'before' if there is no time. Time is a property of THIS universe (space-time to be exact). Time does not exist in and of itself without a frame of reference. You're presupposing properties (like time) where they don't apply.

Exactly, time is not a property of the universe.
Also the definition is not everything that exists?
Therefore there is no outside the universe as this is an oxymoron.
All these theories make as much sense as biblical texts and is unscientific.
In fact the big bang theory compliments god theories of Amun which is the god all Abraham religions worship in first place.
Amun was self-created, without mother and father, and during the New Kingdom he became the greatest expression of transcendental deity in Egyptian theology. He was not considered to be immanent within creation nor was creation seen as an extension of himself. Amun-Ra did not physically engender the universe.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître ( lemaitre.ogg (help·info) 17 July 1894 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[1][2][3][4] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[5][6] He sometimes used the title Abbé or Monseigneur.


Big Bang is god.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
okyesno says:

"x cannot exist without a cause, so y must have caused it."

When asked what caused y okyesno says:

"y exists without a cause"

This means okyesno is irrational... or an idiot.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2012
Actually, I got that wrong, let me correct myself...

okyesno says: "NOTHING can exist without a cause, therefore x cannot exist without a cause, therefore y must have caused it."

When asked what caused y okyesno says "y exists without a cause"

okyesno states that nothing can exist without a cause, but y does exist without a cause... this is clearly irrational nonsense.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
No, you misrepresent or fail to understand my argument. Understand it first, then respond.

If you continue to use a straw man and then attack it, no use to respond to you.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
No, you misrepresent or fail to understand my argument. Understand it first, then respond.

If you continue to use a straw man and then attack it, no use to respond to you.


You say that nothing can exist without cause except this thing you call "god". Well, that's stupid. Why can "god" exist without cause? Why can't the rest of reality? You've offered NOTHING but stupidity.
okyesno
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
"Why can "god" exist without cause? "

Because unlike the universe, God did not begin to exist, but exists necessarily and eternally. Only things that begin to exist need a cause. Other examples of things that may exist eternally and uncaused are abstract objects like certain laws or numbers.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
You're just making shit up. You don't know that the universe had a beginning, no one does. In fact, no one has ever witnessed the beginning of anything. "Beginning", "origin", "end"... these are likely all human invented concepts that came to be from our unique perception of reality that actually have no meaning in objective reality.
okyesno
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
In fact, no one has ever witnessed the beginning of anything. "Beginning", "origin", "end"... these are likely all human invented concepts"

At least we have witnessed the beginning and end of this discussion. I think your opinions are sympathetic, but their highly speculative nature should make you more careful about calling others irrational.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2012
At least we have witnessed the beginning and end of this discussion.


Right, and a "discussion" is an abstract thing, not a physical thing. No one has ever witnessed the origin of anything in physical reality. What we call "origin" or "beginning" always refers to something abstract, never to physical matter/energy. It is a CONCEPT, there is no reason to believe that the CONCEPT of origin applies to reality, none whatsoever.
okyesno
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2012
Well, I disagree. There are very good reasons to believe that the concept of origin applies to our physivcal universe (which I do not equate with reality). One is standard cosmology which places this origin about 13.7 billion years ago, and is consistent with observation. Another is the second law which demonstrates that the universe gradually moves towards thermal equilibrium. The third would be the practical impossibility of infinite past time. So far all models for an eternal universe remain controversial and speculative.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
I do not see which premise you are attacking now. With which of them don't you agree:

1. The universe (all time, space, matter, energy) began to exist
2. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
3. The universe has a cause (from 1,2)
4. The cause of the universe cannot be itself or nothing
5. The cause of the universe is an immaterial, uncaused, timeless, entity (God, from 3,4)

1) Is iffy because to have a defined beginning you have to have a time axis. Spacetime is a property of this universe. So to call t equals zero a 'beginnig' is already a misconception of sorts.
2) see 1)
3) see 1) and 2)
4) It does not need a cause. It may just be without alternative (as explained before)
5) Doesn't follow from anything that you stated in 1-4...even if any of them were correct.

Again you make the mistake of postulating time outside the confines of the universe. That is just false. You're doing GIGO, big time. (GIGO: Garbage In Garbage Out. i.e.: false premise - false conclusion)

Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
One is standard cosmology which places this origin about 13.7 billion years ago


No, again, the big bang theory does not state anything about what may have existed BEFORE it.

Another is the second law which demonstrates that the universe gradually moves towards thermal equilibrium.


THIS universe... THIS universe might be part of a larger construct, you have no idea. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT EXISTED BEFORE THE BIG BANG, WE DON'T KNOW IF THE UNIVERSE WE PERCEIVE IS ALL THAT EXISTS.

We don't know, period.

The third would be the practical impossibility of infinite past time. So far all models for an eternal universe remain controversial and speculative.


Again, time is not a physical thing.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2012
THIS universe... THIS universe might be part of a larger construct

Oxymoron.
The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,[1]

you have no idea. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT EXISTED BEFORE THE BIG BANG, WE DON'T KNOW IF THE UNIVERSE WE PERCEIVE IS ALL THAT EXISTS.

There is no big bang and there is no before. And of course there is a lot more to the universe that we have never seen.
Again, time is not a physical thing.

Big Bang theory claims otherwise. Time is a required property of the universe for the big bang model, it doesn't work without it. Change is a physical process that allows the universe to exist in the first place but the notion to call it time is simply wrong.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
Antialias,

I am saying that spacetime has a beginning which is what cosmologists do as well(1):

"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning"

That means a beginning of all dimensions of spacetime, including time. This is exacly what the Borde/Guth/Vilekin theorem postulates, and applies to every expanding universe or multiverse, oscillating or not. With that I think premise 1 stands firm.

It seems with regard to premise 4 that you now consider the universe to exist necessarily rather than appearing uncaused out of nothing. Is that true? Based on what do you think the universe exists out of it's own necessity? Could the set of elementary particles in the universe not be any different from those of the standard model? What proof do you have for that?

(1)A Vilekin, Many worlds in one, 2006, 176
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2012
Again the godder seeks to deceive by taking what a scientist says out of context:

"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist. As evidenced by Jinasenas remarks earlier in this chapter, religion is not immune to the paradoxes of Creation.

"What were Jinasenas remarks? In the 9th century, this Jain poet wrote:

"The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected." -your source

-You have been exposed. Again. The internet is the enemy of all Lying superstitionists. Sow your seed elsewhere.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2012
Henrik also implies infers that ALL scientists agree and yet cites only one. Another typical deception:
I am saying that spacetime has a beginning which is what cosmologists do as well(1)
ANYONE who seeks to engage these religionists owes it to themselves and the rest of the people here, to CHECK the sources they cite. They are invariably misused. This is the easiest and most effective way of refuting them.

Do not let their lies stand.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
spacetime has a beginning which is what cosmologists do as well

You say the words, but you do not understand what they mean. That something has a beginning does NOT imply that it exists along a linear time axis with the axis extending before the beginning. That is a naive wordlview where you extrapolate everyday observations to instances (like the big bang) where they don't apply (GIGO).

There is a reason why we talk about spacetime and not "space and time" as separate entities. They are not separate - and this has been shown time and again by experiment.

It seems with regard to premise 4 that you now consider the universe to exist necessarily rather than appearing uncaused out of nothing. Is that true?

If logic applies (and that is a big IF) then the notion of nothingness is an oxymoron (i.e. cannot be an attainable state).
If the above is true then something must exist. Not necessarily something that looks like our universe - but something nevertheless.
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
I dont see how that comment invalidates any of premise 1-4. As far as I know, Vilekin and Guth are atheists. But I am not quoting them to provide proof of creation. I am quoting them to provide evidence that the universe has a beginning, which is part of the argument. Guth believes the universe came out of nothing uncaused, which is not a coherent scientific explanation.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
Vilekin and Guth are atheists

So?

And again (for the fifth time): 'Beginning' is not equivalent to 'needs a first cause' or 'needs something to kick it off'

Guth believes the universe came out of nothing

No. That is not in his paper. That is your conjecture based on your failure to understand spacetime (or rather your failure to understand that time is not an independent dimension from space).
Time does not extend beyond the initial state into the 'past'.

Aside form that, there are alternative theories. E.g. Stephen Hawking argues for the possibility of a finite time without a boundary.

Honestly: we just don't know. But postulating a self creating, timelss creator (who somehow still manages to do stuff in a timeless state - how does that even work?) is certainly the (vastly) most complex of all theories out there.

And in the past the simplest explanation has tended to be the right one. So lets look at those before we resort to a magician - shall we?

okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
"That something has a beginning does NOT imply that it exists along a linear time axis"

You are putting words in my mouth. I have never made such a claim. Look again at premise 1-4. To say that I do not understand things, is a poor argument.

To say that the universe exists necessarily is a leap of faith. Our universe is one of the exp(500) possible solutions of the M theory, and seems incredibly fine tuned. Not a single entity in it is likely to exists out of necessity, such as all the particles or even physics laws. So to assume that this is still the case is a blind assumption.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2012
And BTW - you're probably referring to Craig's analysis of the paper of Guth, Vilekin, Borde (actually he doesn't even cite the paper but a book that cites the paper)

Here's a pretty good list how Craig gets it all wrong (i.e. where he jumps to unwarranted conclusions)
http://debunkingw...ilenkin/

As for your other question
Could the set of elementary particles in the universe not be any different from those of the standard model?

Who knows? It's impossible to predict something from just one datapoint (that point being: the way stuff is in this universe).

Maybe this is just a chance set of attributes. Maybe there is a regularizing principle that only allows these specific attributes. Maybe it's something in between (with some attributes being confined to certain value ranges). We really don't know - and until we observe other universes we won't.

"I don't know" is a prefectly acceptable answer when no information is available.
Cynical1
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2012
"Why can "god" exist without cause? "

Because unlike the universe, God did not begin to exist, but exists necessarily and eternally. Only things that begin to exist need a cause. Other examples of things that may exist eternally and uncaused are abstract objects like certain laws or numbers.

Laws are statements that define man's interpretation of
observations, as well as the conditions in which they are applied.

All laws had a beginning - with man's usage of them.
Same thing goes for numbers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2012
And BTW - you're probably referring to Craig's analysis of the paper of Guth, Vilekin, Borde (actually he doesn't even cite the paper but a book that cites the paper)

Here's a pretty good list how Craig gets it all wrong (i.e. where he jumps to unwarranted conclusions)
-So henrik is only repeating someone elses deception which has been convincingly disproved. Henrik you are at LEAST lazy.

"However, Craigs main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from absolute nothingness (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event."

Pretty pathetic dude.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2012
To say that the universe exists necessarily is a leap of faith. Our universe is one of the exp(500) possible solutions of the M theory, and seems incredibly fine tuned.

M theory is, currently, just a theory (a blind assumption) itself. It is,a s yet, not testable and has free variables. So strictly speaking it isn't scientific.

Even so, let's assume M theory turns out to be good: If those 10exp500 universes can exist (in parallel or whatever). If M theory is true then why would we assume that all the others DONT exist?

But we wouldn't be able to survive in the vast majority of them (maybe some other type of beings could exist in some of them).

OF COURSE will the universe in which a being exists that can ask itself such questions be perfecrtly suited for that being. How could we develop in a universe that wouldn't support us? You're like the puddle wondering why he so perfectly fits the hole he's in - when it's the hole that defines the shape of the puddle.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
"Honestly: we just don't know. But postulating a self creating, timelss creator (who somehow still manages to do stuff in a timeless state - how does that even work?) is certainly the (vastly) most complex of all theories out there"

Postulating God as the uncreated and timeless cause of the beginning of the material universe is a cogent explanation that is consistent with standard cosmology. I don't see how that is more or less complex than "we just don't know". Like I said, God is a very simple concept but with complex consequences. The law of gravity is also very simple, but is responsible for shaping every part of the universe and every orbit of every particle.

Hawkings no boundary model is also subject to the same limitation. It has a beginning, and past time is finite. It makes use of imaginary time which is quite a complex concept in itself.
okyesno
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
The notion that the universe originates from a quantum fluctuation event is an old one but fails to account for the big bang singularity. The reason is that a quantum event occurs in a quantum energy field in space and time, which is something and not nothing.

However, at the singularity neither energy nor space nor time exists. The beginning of space, time and all types of energy must be accounted for, not some pre-existing vacuum field.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2012
@okyesno I am quoting them to provide evidence that the universe has a beginning, which is part of the argument.
And at the singularity t=END will be proof not of your imaginary god, but evidence that you fell into a black hole. So what?
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
@okyesno However, at the singularity neither energy nor space nor time exists.
False. Spacttime is unitary at the singularity. The dimensions haven't uncurled yet. The energy is ubiquitous. This universe may have ten dimensions, but the others are curled up at the Plank scale. Under other initial conditions space might have fewer or more dimensions. Antimatter could have prevailed in which case effects and causes would be interchanged. You talk about this universe as if you're standing outside it. That doesn't give you the perspective of a god, but only the perspective of some being outside the event horizon. Otherwise we would be gods relative to beings locked inside the black hole at the centere of the Milly Way. Obviously that's not the case, although we have the power to toss garbage into their universe, which could be a power of creation in a very backhanded way. Then again humans create life all the time by having children. No black hole required.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
The need for certainty seems to be a sticking point for many theists. Scientists are willing to admit that they dont know why something occurs and then work to figure it out; theistic apologists, however, seem incapable of accepting the idea of not knowing why the universe exists.

Underlying the design argument is the assumption of ignorance about some aspect or other and then the conclusion that since we dont know, a god is the proper explanation. Ignored is the question of whether or not an unknown god, using unknown and possibly unknowable methods, for unknown and possibly unknowable reasons, can ever be considered a rational explanation for anything.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
Most believers have a few common claims. The first is that this creator-god has always existed while the universe has not; the second is that, because the universe began to exist at some point, it requires a creator in a way that a creator for the god would not. Unfortunately, the assertion that this god always existed is unsupported and apparently unsupportable. It's just an assertion we have no particular reason to believe. The assertion that the universe began to exist is also problematic because time itself is a feature of the universe, and therefore the universe does not exist in time such that we can talk about a time before the universe or a time after the universe.

Another objection raised by believers is the idea that their god is a necessary being and doesnt need a creator. This is also unsupported and unsupportable. There is no basis for such an arbitrary assertion, except to try to excuse their god from the same standards they wish to apply to the universe
EverythingsJustATheory
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
Moreover, both of the above excuses made for this god can work equally well for the universe. Why can't the universe be necessary or not need a creator? Why can't we say that the universe has always existed because there is no identifiable point in time when the universe did not exist? The question Who made God? manages to show that one of the most common and popular reasons used to support belief in such a god is highly problematic and cannot serve as rational grounds for belief.

Using quantum cosmology, current thinking and evidence offer an explanation for the universe that is a more believable explanation than theism.
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2012
Excellent summary EverythingsJustATheory. And as they say in Hollywood, that's a wrap! LOL
Deathclock
3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
However, at the singularity neither energy nor space nor time exists. The beginning of space, time and all types of energy must be accounted for, not some pre-existing vacuum field.


Then the beginning of your "god" must be accounted for as well.

You can't just say "The universe has to have a beginning but god doesn't BECAUSE I SAY SO" and stomp your feet like a fucking child.

If SOMETHING can exist without origin, god or the universe, then why can't the universe? If you think that something exists without origin (god) there is no reason that something else cannot exist without origin (the universe), it's just stupid fucking nonsense and you are completely insane for thinking otherwise. You have no valid reason, you stomp your feet and dig your heels in and cling to your ridiculous dogma like a mental patient.
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
" The assertion that the universe began to exist is also problematic"

Well, not for cosmologists supporting the standard model for an expanding universe. I have provided quotes from a reputable science source that state the universe does have a beginning. You have provided nothing. Try to substantiate your claim with arguments. Why does the universe not have a beginning according to you and what reputable source are you using to support this claim?
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2012
I have provided quotes from a reputable science source that state the universe does have a beginning.
It's called an initial state. From there it evolves in accordance with the physical laws manifesting in that particular universe. Again, so what? Do you have a point besides resiting this over and over like a mantra? Or is this mantra all you're got? To date, all you've done is recite your mantra like a parrot.
okyesno
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2012
From Hawkings 2008 TED lecture:

"(..) if we extrapolate back the movement of the galaxies (..) we have them on top of eachother about 15 billion years ago. This is the big bang, the BEGINNING of the universe. But was there anything before the big bang? If not, what created the universe? (...) "

In his book The Grand Design, Hawking reveals his own creation myth:

"Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. (Page 180)"

Oxford professor Lennox criticized Hawking's creation-without-God:

"But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions"

"Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there?"
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2012
I have provided quotes from a reputable science source that state the universe does have a beginning.

Let's get this straight:

Yes, you quoted a source. But the source says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you claimed it says (and honestly: I don't believe you have even read the paper. Nor the book that cited the paper).

This should tell you a few thinngs:
1) You are not mentally equipped to read (much less understand) scientific papers. You just don't have the educational background.
2) You should not trust your own interpretation of cosmological realities (or any aspect of reality for that matter)
3) You should not build your life around the decductions made utilizing facilities you do not posess
4) You should not expect others (who posess these facilities) to take you seriously

It's rather sad that you base your entire life on a very basic failure to recognize your own inadequacy.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2012
I disagree that I avoided your questions, I addressed them all as much as possible.
You evade all questions you don't like.

Not very rational I say.
If you only understood what 'rational' meant that might have some meaning.

As far as the other questions, I am quite happy to reply those
Lie. You quite completely avoid mine.

but I think that the usual Physorg terrorists here will spoil any meaningful debate by trolling around.
That would be YOU? You can have a meaningful debate anytime you want.

Just answer my questions.

When was the Great Flood? Where is evidence for it?

for you could be wrong about God.
Sure. If there is some for its existence that is. When are you going to supply some. Physical evidence for the Great Flood would do quite well. I can assure that if you had that people here might actually start to agree with you.>>
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
"But the source says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you claimed it says"

No, the source confirms that every possible expanding uni/multiverse has a beginning, which supports premise 1. Let me quote again: "they have to face a beginning". So the real dummy is the person who is dishonest about the available sources. By the way, what scientific source do you have for the claim the universe does not have a beginning?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2012
at times atheists have tried to impose their views on others as well, causing millions of deaths and suffering.
No. Never. People who happened to be Atheists have tried to force others to do things their NON ATHEIST way. That is Stalin was a Communist first and Atheism just came along with it. There are many Communists that are not Atheists. Certainly hundreds of millions of Socialists that Atheists. Jesus for instance.

All this just proves is that humans are inherently sinful and in need of redemption.
No. It proves that democracy works better than a dictatorship. Though it humans are inherently sinful AND we were created by Jehovah then Jehovah WANTED us to sinful. He sure created a lot really nasty stuff according to you.

Do you want to explain how parasites are from a beneficent god? Or are you going to continue to pretend that hasn't been asked?

I have not waged any war agianst Science
Lie.>>
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
Ethelred,

Sorry mate, but your posts are cluttering the discussion. Would you be so friendly and leave this discussion alone? (I am not planning to respond to all of your ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies, so don't bother). You are just polluting the page with dribble. Thanks!
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2012
Science is perfectly ok, but science is not the same as truth
It is about finding the truth.

It is based on a belief in our ability to reason and think about reality.
It is based on the idea that assuming the opposite is futile.

But human thought is limited, and so is science.
We can work around those problems.

My conjecture is that science itself proves there is a God
That isn't a conjecture its bare faced lie.

as the origin of rationality
Needs no god. Just reason and careful thought.

and that belief is and attribute of both religion as well as science.
In some ways but NOT in the YOU mean. Religion, especially yours, is belief despite the evidence. Science has one belief. That it trying to figure things out is not futile. So far it working pretty well.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
Ethelred,

Sorry mate, but your posts are cluttering the discussion
Translation, Henrik knows I he can't handle me.

Would you be so friendly and leave this discussion alone?
Would you be so friendly as to stop attacking science? No? Then here I stay.

(I am not planning to respond to all of your ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies, so don't bother).
Lie. There are no ad hominem attacks in my posts. And you have not shown a single fallacy. Which is why you evade my posts.

You are just polluting the page with dribble. Thanks!
You sure do lie a lot. Thanks for making it so clear I terrify you.

Now when was that Great Flood?

Ethelred
Origin
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
Would you be so friendly and leave this discussion alone?
I do fully agree with you, that Ethelred is just a dribbling troll without value added. But you're not required to feed him with answers and you're not supposed to attempt for censorship and to ask any posters for leaving the discussion. if you're unsatisfied with his answers, use the report feature instead.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2012
That is a very unscientific statement.
Actually I can agree with you on that. It is a philosophical statment.

As far as the universe is concerned, it is like the bump, it needs a cause because it began to expand at some point.
That isn't actually true. It is a supposition on your part.

You see, you commit an obvious fallacy by assuming the universe is all there is.
It may be wrong, I think it is, but it isn't a fallacy. Lots of Scientists think there should be only one. I have no idea why except intertia.

That is simply presupposing atheism
No. There is no need for a god for the Universe to start. It is assuming that anything that fits a god fits the universe.

Before the universe, there was not nothing but God existed, and He is the logical cause of the universe, not nothingness
Wrong. That is pure assumption and its wrong too.>>
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2012
AP
Moving to multiverses or branes or whatever doesn't change the argument one bit.
Sure it does. M theory can produce universe without needing a start point for a multiverse. I am aware that you don't like multiverses but that is a handicap I do not need.

I note that Larry Krause is beginning to come around to multiverses.

How can there be a 'before' if there is no time.
Henrik can't handle that question. I can. You don't like my answer though. Heck I don't like it but it works.

Time is a property of THIS universe (space-time to be exact).
Yes. Except that it can be a property of a Multiverse as well. One without a beginning. One that exists simply because it can thus must.

1. The universe (all time, space, matter, energy) began to exist
Not correct. The UNIVERSE we live in is NOT all there can be. There can be a multiverse. Yes I know there another definition of Universe but it is a broken definition that does not fit the way things may be.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2012
2. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Assumption. Everything that CAN exist will exist. A much more inclusive assumption.

3. The universe has a cause (from 1
Assumption that AP does not agree with, neither does Dr. Hawking. I think the 'cause' is simple. It CAN exist thus it does.

4. The cause of the universe cannot be itself or nothing
Bad assumption. In M-=theory the universe can be generated by branes and in QM, via uncertainty plus the Cosmological Constant, a universe can spawn child universes.

5. The cause of the universe is an immaterial, uncaused, timeless, entity (God, from 3,4)
And that is a religious belief that does not fit with anything that preceded. Especially since YOU believe in Jehovah and without the Great Flood that god does not exist.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012
There is an answer to these questions. One that makes sense.

The Universe, all possible universes, exist because they can. They can exist because the mathematical principles they run on exists whether there is a universe or not. Yes AP hates this but that is his problem, not mine. I simply find it disturbing. It explains why there is something instead of nothing.

True this is philosophy but that what is being discussed here. The philosophy of beginnings. It is not science but it has explanatory power. Ad this one concept to Dr. Krause's book A Universe From Nothing and that gives us the Multiverse and a reason for there being something instead of nothing. A god does NOT answer that question. After all if the question is why is there something instead of nothing then the god is still something and why does it exist?>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012
AP you really should read that book. Dr Krause is heading down the Multiverse path and that is the path that lead to my thinking on mathematical principles.

Henrik
If the god was mathematically valid it could exist. Jehovah isn't even valid for our Universe much less mathematically valid.

Unless you have that evidence I keep asking for Henrik. When was the Great Flood and where is evidence for it?

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2012
Hi Zephir/Origin:
I do fully agree with you, that Ethelred is just a dribbling troll without value added
Well of course a troll like you tells lies about me.

OH yes. That post of yours was the perfect example of what Henrik is falsely accusing me of, the ad hominem attack.

Why did you have to create yet another sockpuppet this time?

Since you lied about me again here is truth about you.

You and your website.

Milan Petrik
http://petrik.big...ovky.cz/

Ethelred
Anorion
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
okyesno and origin

the only people that are polluting discussions on this server are idiotic creationists who try to stick they sick religion everywhere and in everything, so creationists and other religious trolls please leave, no one care about your god or other imaginary shits like that
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2012
@okyesno "Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there?"
What put it there was local aggregation of matter. Stupid question.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2012
Kochevnik

He is asking about who put the LAW of gravity there. Which is not so stupid but since he refuses to ask the same about his god there we are again back at being, if not actually stupid, at least obtuse.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2012
Ethelred,

Sorry mate, but your posts are cluttering the discussion. Would you be so friendly and leave this discussion alone? (I am not planning to respond to all of your ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies, so don't bother). You are just polluting the page with dribble. Thanks!
Ahahaaa this is a new one. I think it means he knows he's losing. Henrik only wants to argue with people who don't know what he's about. Obscurantism for instance. Henrik why don't you just ignore the people who make you look silly?
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2012
He is asking about who put the LAW of gravity there.
Oh well that's even easier to answer. Man made the LAW of gravity. Oh should I say, the men who could think straight instead of just gazing at their navel.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2012
Would you be so friendly and leave this discussion alone?
I do fully agree with you, that Ethelred is just a dribbling troll without value added. But you're not required to feed him with answers and you're not supposed to attempt for censorship and to ask any posters for leaving the discussion. if you're unsatisfied with his answers, use the report feature instead.


Hey, Milan, how about you take your dozens upon dozens of trolling sockpuppets and shove them where the sun doesn't shine? With any luck, the resulting bowel trauma will take you out of service for a while.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012
Ethelred,

Sorry mate, but your posts are cluttering the discussion. Would you be so friendly and leave this discussion alone? (I am not planning to respond to all of your ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies, so don't bother). You are just polluting the page with dribble. Thanks!

Sorry "mate" but the only ones to pollute this board are drooling delusional psychotics such as yourself and Zephir/Alizee/Jigga/Origin/etc.

Eth's comments are invariably more useful, entertaining, educated and pertinent than yours, so why don't you take your own advice, make like a bird and flock off?

That you and the multi-sockpuppet troll would think otherwise simply provides additional evidence that you are probably suffering from some form of organic brain damage. Treatment and rehabilitation may still be an option, however. Have you considered consulting a neuologist?
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2012
Sure it does. M theory can produce universe without needing a start point for a multiverse. I am aware that you don't like multiverses but that is a handicap I do not need.

Quite the contrary. I think the idea of multiverses is pretty neat (unfortunately as of yet untestable, but we should keep it in mind. Maybe we can come up with a test in the future). But multiverses don't solve any of the (naive) questions of why there is anything at all or why stuff is the way it is.
(Note that I have already argued that these questions don't make sense for other reasons - so I'm not disputing it)

But saying "branes did it" or "all possible multiverses exist" is, currently, equivalent to saying "god did it". Neither have any evidence in their favor.

I just don't subscribe that if something is mathematically possible it must therefore also have real meaning. Mathematics is a tool used to describe reality. But that tool can also describe unreal things. The map is not the territory.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2012
We need to acknowledge that we are the product of evolution. Our BRAINS are the product of evolution. And this possibly leads us to see things with a certain bias (as a scientist I am used to question things. This necessarily includes the tools we use like mathematics and the brain.)

So we evolved to see things as cause and effect - because that was a useful survival strategy (if we were beings on a quantummechanical/nano scale then we would probably not be dealing with a cause-effect primed brain and we'd be 'reasoning' quite differently)

That something (like math) works for a lot of things does not mean it is automatically immutably true - and that we therefore can invert the relationship and call all things in math true and the unverse needs to follow it.

Newtonian gravity would be a case in point. Beautiful? Useful? Assuredly! Correct? Not since Einstein's had his say.

Multiverses are a beautiful concept. Are they therefore real? We don't know yet.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2012
Exactly AP, I've said it a thousand times here, mathematics can be used model reality but it does not dictate reality.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
But multiverses don't solve any of the (naive) questions of why there is anything at all or why stuff is the way it is.
That's what the zero point field in essence is: complete stillness (0 hz) and filled with an infinite cascade of harmonics, all at the same time. The cascade of waves creates an infinite series of higher harmonics, and when all the waves are added up, using Fourier theory, it creates a perfectly flat wave of zero hz: perfect stillness. If you vibrate a glass of water, you will see wave fronts in the glass. With increasing frequency, vibrations will be harder to notice yet the water surface is vibrating. By adding in all possible vibrations with frequencies ranging from extremely low to indefinitely high, the sum result of all these vibrations will turn the water into a smooth surface again. This calmness however is illusory since the water is both at rest and violently shaking simultaneously!
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2012
That's what the zero point field in essence is:

Positing (or even observing) such a field is no different: Why such a field? At some point you always come to the notion of "The explanation is neat, but why is it the explanation?"

Frankly, philosophically speaking; I think there is a fundamental flaw in the question of "Why...?". It works for most things but just not in this context. It presupposes causality (or at least correlation). And at the end of the day one might even ask: "Why causality/correlation - and not something else?"...that's where it all breaks down, of course.

We're biased towards asking "why" (because it has been a good survival strategy) - but we may have to rethink that tool in this particular case.

And no - I don't have an answer what the solution to this conundrum might be. It seems that the entire concept of thinking about it is already innately wrong (not thinking about it is no better I might add..so no 'out' for the god-people, here)
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2012
Man made the LAW of gravity.
Come on now. That is pretending the theories are the actualities of the how gravity works.

Oh should I say, the men who could think straight instead of just gazing at their navel.
Well Einstein did claim he came up with GR based on a gedak-oh bloody hell I am not going to spell that, THOUGHT experiment. Of course the math was just bit more than mere navel gazing. He even had learn more math to do the job.

Ethelred
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
@antialias_physorg
That's what the zero point field in essence is:
Positing (or even observing) such a field is no different: Why such a field? At some point you always come to the notion of "The explanation is neat, but why is it the explanation?"
Well the idea makes testable predictions. If you know that a universe is a departure from equilibrium then one can hypothesize that there will be counteractions to balance the equations. This can be seen at every level of nature. Matter has antimatter, electrons have protons etc. Such an exquisite, ubiquitous and infinitely detailed nesting of balances can't be arbitrary. These is no such thing as nothing just systems far from equilibrium that add up to it.
Come on now. That is pretending the theories are the actualities of the how gravity works.
How gravity works is debatable and possibly unknowable. Laws are simply axioms used for theories, like the theory of gravity. They're made to be broken.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
Quite the contrary. I think the idea of multiverses is pretty neat
OK. I misunderstood your position.

But multiverses don't solve any of the (naive) questions of why there is anything at all or why stuff is the way it is.
It doesn't solve why anything instead of something BUT it does solve why stuff is the way it is. It is MANY ways in a multiverse. This one supports life and that simply is the way it is out many possible ways.

Note that I have already argued that these questions don't make sense for other reasons
They do make sense as questions. They just don't have real certain answers.

But saying "branes did it" or "all possible multiverses exist" is, currently, equivalent to saying "god did it".
No. Its more than that. It fits the evidence that we have and a god, at least Henrik's god, does not. Not even the one he defined as that god is self contradictory. Being perfect it would have no need to create.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
Neither have any evidence in their favor.
Nor against. Since actual testing is impossible that is the best we can hope for. At the moment. Brane theory may be open to testing. The Multiverse isn't though it can support a Brane theory.

I just don't subscribe that if something is mathematically possible it must therefore also have real meaning.
I understand. I am not saying it is so. I am saying there no reason for it to not be so.

Mathematics is a tool used to describe reality.
It is more than that as far as anyone can tell.

But that tool can also describe unreal things.
That is why we must experiment to find out what math fits our universe.

The map is not the territory.
Mistake. The map in this IS THE TERRITORY. Except it isn't a map. Its a set of mathematical laws and constants that tell us how everything behaves. Since Uncertainty is part of the set we cannot know how things will happen in our universe.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
We need to acknowledge that we are the product of evolution
You tell ME that?

And this possibly leads us to see things with a certain bias
Of course it does. We can overcome those. We HAVE done so in many areas of study already.

So we evolved to see things as cause and effect - because that was a useful survival strategy
Useful because the universe has causes for the effects. We can observe this occurring.

then we would probably not be dealing with a cause-effect primed brain and we'd be 'reasoning' quite differently
No. There is cause and effect on that level as well. Just less certainty. And yes I know time can go either way there BUT that simply means the cause can go either way in time.

That something (like math) works for a lot of things does not mean it is automatically immutably true
Nevertheless so far it has worked.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
and that we therefore can invert the relationship and call all things in math true and the universe needs to follow it.
We can UNTIL something is shown to NOT fit math. You got anything? I haven't of anyone with such a thing.

Newtonian gravity would be a case in point. Beautiful? Useful? Assuredly! Correct? Not since Einstein's had his say.
And GR still fits math exactly within the limit of observation. Anything that replaces it is likely to do the same.

Multiverses are a beautiful concept. Are they therefore real? We don't know yet.
I don't really think they are all that beautiful. I think they give answers that MAY fit reality.

DC
Exactly AP, I've said it a thousand times here, mathematics can be used model reality but it does not dictate reality.
You can say another thousand times and you have doubled the amount of math involved in your description of reality. Which will still EXACTLY fit math.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
At some point you always come to the notion of "The explanation is neat, but why is it the explanation?"
That is why you test things. Plank's constant works but Plank pretty much pulled it out of his ass. It seems to fit the universe anyway.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in the question of "Why...?".
To some extent I agree but at some point the answer is going to be 'because it is a property of the Universe we live in'. But that only applies to science questions about our universe.

The real question is why shouldn't our universe exist? And I can give reasons why it shouldn't IF.

IF the universe has a total energy that is not equal to zero it should not exist UNLESS someone can figure out a loophole.

The universe may have a total energy of zero. The kinetic vs potential energy IS zero as far can be measured. I am afraid Dr. Krause's A Universe From Nothing didn't have an answer of how the mass/energy can be balances except if the Cosmological constant can do so.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
Why causality/correlation - and not something else?"...that's where it all breaks down, of course.
Naw that isn't a breakdown. It is how any universe would work if it is going to support life. Life requires iterative processes. Thus there must be time and cause and effect. A universe without those things cannot have intelligent life.

It seems that the entire concept of thinking about it is already innately wrong
I don't think so. You have to change your point of view sometimes. You will never get anywhere, except by accident, if you assume you can't get anywhere.

You two are making a mistake on math. You MAY be right but there is nothing supporting your position except inertia. You have decide that math is only a model. That is an assumption that they universe does not justify. It may be a correct assumption BUT for it to be so there has to be an aspect of the Universe that does not fit mathematics. So far everything does.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
Newton could have been right. Experiment showed he was wrong but only because the observations improved. So far Einstein is right even with a hundred years of improvements in observation.

IF the Universe is at bottom a set of rules and constants THEN math does not merely control the Universe. It defines it. Do not mistake OUR definitions for the Universe rules. The one is a model the other is reality BUT that reality could very well be a set of math/logic principles at the bottom, a SUBSET of those that we can discover. There can be other different SUBSETS of such principles that hold sway in other universes. Only experiment can tell us which subsets of the whole of math/logic holds in our Universe.

If you really think that math/logic is NOT what defines our Universe then you must think it is something else. What? Magic? That is what Henrik thinks.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
Yes this is philosophy and not testable BUT the alternative to mathematical/logical principles is WHAT?

That is how a change in point of view can reach answers that you didn't think you could find.

And yes I thought of that question for you guys as I wrote this. Never thought of the what could be an alternative to math before. Can't see one at the moment. Perhaps you can.

Ethelred
okyesno
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2012
Krauss multiverse is in fact not a very good explanation why there is something rather than nothing. There are two reaons:

1. Krauss "nothing" really turns out to be something. Whereas Hawking's "nothing" was the law of gravity, Krauss' "nothing" happens to be some form of vacuum energy. But vacuum energy is something and not nothing.

2. If the vacuum energy is somehow created in a multiverse, then the question of origin shifts to the multiverse. A multiverse of expanding universes cannot be past infinite either. Again I refer to Borde/Guth/Vilenkin which covers it.

The real deal here is that all these scientists use some kind of pre-universe form of universe to explain why the universe exists. But we want to know where the universe comes from! That means all the energy/matter/specetime. And of course something eternal has to be the cause. But not a material cause, but an immaterial cause will suffice. That is why the beginning of the universe does point to God as the eternal cause
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2012
Krauss multiverse is in fact not a very good explanation why there is something rather than nothing.
So few words but several errors.

'Krauss multiverse' is an error because it doesn't belong to him and he has only recently begun to think of it as a possibility. His video on Youtube has him clearly disliking it just 2.5 years ago.

http://www.youtub...vlS8PLIo

Krauss "nothing" really turns out to be something
The something is physical laws, no magic is needed for that.

Krauss' "nothing" happens to be some form of vacuum energy. But vacuum energy is something and not nothing
By nothing he means zero net energy.

2. If the vacuum energy is somehow created in a multiverse, then the question of origin shifts to the multiverse
That is Dr. Krause, he is still working this. And the multiverse does NOT need a beginning. However my idea is the universe exists because it can since the total energy is zero.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2012
He thinks the same but he doesn't have a reason for the laws. I do. They ALL exist if they can. That is my multiverse. His is the Wheeler model or something like it.

Again I refer to Borde/Guth/Vilenkin which covers it.
Sorry but doesn't cover my idea and it doesn't cover an eternal Wheeler type multiverse or an eternal brane multiverse.

The real deal here is that all these scientists use some kind of pre-universe form of universe to explain why the universe exists.
I don't. The principles of math/logic are inherent. Even a god must bow to them.

But we want to know where the universe comes from!
I gave a possible answer. I guess you didn't know it when you tried to get me to leave. Must be because you knew you can deal with the others with bullshit because they forget to back to pointing out that is bullshit.

And of course something eternal has to be the cause.
Not necessarily but math/logic covers that anyway. It does not need a cause. A god does.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
That is why the beginning of the universe does point to God as the eternal cause
Only when you are talking to believers in gods. Scientists simply figure that the answer is not yet known. I figure that math/logic may not be the real answer but is a better answer than a god. Especially one that cannot exist which is the case for the god of Genesis.

You are going down this Origins of the Universe route to avoid admitting you are wrong on evolution. Evolution is real and is not dependent on how life or the Universe got started.

Oh when you admit that and give on on BOTH the Young Earth you believe in AND the Great Flood I won't see anything, I think, to disagree with you on. At least nothing that can be tested anyway. All indications are that you are a Biblical literalist and this origins stuff is just a smokescreen for that. A wedge from the Discovery Institute.

So when was that Flood you clearly think actually happened and where is some evidence for it?

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
If you know that a universe is a departure from equilibrium

Problem being: Do we know that is a departure from such equilibrium? And why should there be an equilibrium (and not something else).

Such an exquisite, ubiquitous and infinitely detailed nesting of balances can't be arbitrary.

I'll give you a counterexample:
It's like observing that planets don't move in circles but ALMOST circles - which is a much more vexing state of affairs.
It's like observing that mass behaves ALMOST like Newton described it but not quite.

Humans find symmetries pleasing - and throughout the ages we have always started to model our theories based on symmetries. Unfortunately we have always had to abandon them (and move to 'deeper' symmetries). It is not certain (or provable) whether symmetries are even at the basis of things. That's just another assumption. Just because something feels pleasing as an explanation doesn't mean it has to be true.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
"Sorry but doesn't cover my idea and it doesn't cover an eternal Wheeler type multiverse or an eternal brane multiverse."

Yes it does. Currently every variant of inflationary multiverse and oscilllating universe is included in this theorem. None of them can have a past eternal series of events. Vilenkin has recently written a new paper addressing this.

Now to show how scientists try to redefine "nothing" to mean their partuclar version of nothing, the following statement from Guth is revealing:

"We are told that at the beginning of the universe there was nothing, a pure vacuum with no space or matter, a vacuum which is subject to quantum uncertainties so that things can come out of it and vanish back into it. And what came out of it was a false vacuum, a particular kind of matter which has never been observed"

Again Guth is describing something: a vacuum subject to the laws of quantum mechanics that generates some mysterious new form of matter...
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
Is the balance of negative and positive energy evidence for the universe popping into existence from nothing?

No. It is just a cop out and represents poor conceptual thinking. For still does not explain why the energy itself came into being, and the mechanism that separated them.

Furthermore, if something truly can pop out of non-being, then why would it precisely lead to a very finely balanced net zero energy? Why not net positive or net negative energy? If anything could come out of non-anything, then the limitation to net zero energy presupposes some form of pre-ordering of the not-anything. For if something truly could pop out of non-being (no time, no energy, no space), then everything could pop out of it, not just a net zero energy universe.

This makes the net zero energy not evidence for nothing to something at all, but evidence for a failure to understand what nothing really means.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called "virtual particle" pairs are known as "quantum fluctuations." Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2012
In fact, only in a universe that has net zero energy would we expect to see the structures that we observe, i.e., a homogeneous and isotropic universe that is flat.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2012
One would expect a designed universe to be friendly to life. However, this is not the case. If the universe were bio-friendly, you would think it would not be so wasteful of time, space, and matter. Life would be expected to develop quickly, with carbon and the other elements of life already present in the early universe, not simply the afterthought of billions of years of stellar evolution. An optimally biophilic universe would not be expected to have life confined to tiny points in space separated by such great distances as to make exchange virtually impossible. And, if life is an important part of the universe, then its basic ingredients should be a major component. Instead, atoms comprise less than a tenth of one percent of the mass of the universe. Photons outnumber atoms by a factor of a billion. Finally, a life-friendly universe should exhibit far more order than ours, in which the deviation from random thermal motion is only one part in a hundred thousand.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
There are problems with the concept of an intelligent designer:
1) How can a supernatural entity 'exist'?
2) How can one be both all-powerful and all-knowing?
3) What did an all-loving being do before there was anything to
love?
4) How could such a being have existed forever?
5) How can the being influence the universe if he/she/it is
outside of time?
6) How does it reason or think if it has no brain? How does it
move if it is vapor?
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
A quantum fluctuation is not a very good explanation for the beginning of the universe. Quantum fluctuations occur in a quantum field - that is, in space, time and energy as the Heisenberg equation expresses. But we must look for an explanation of all the space, time and energy, including that of the elusive vacuum field. Such an explanation is only cogent if it does not use some form of pre-universe spacetime, matter or energy.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
"In fact, only in a universe that has net zero energy would we expect to see the structures that we observe"

That is not true. The net amount of energy in an expanding universe depends on the value of an arbitrary constant in the potential energy term. Any value, zero or otherwise, would fit in the big bang scenario quite well.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
1

That depends on how you define existence. God would exist outside of space and time, so he would be eternal and omnipresent.

2

God is a necessary Being, and His attributes flow logically from His role as creator an designer of the universe and life.

3

Love is a quality that is simply part of God's being, like attraction of matter to gravity. Gravity would as a concept have this attribute even in the absence of matter to attract.

4

You are thinking of God as a contingent being like humans and protons, but this is wrong. God is a necessary being.

5

The beste explanation is that God existed timeless before the creation of the universe and started to exist in time at the moment of creation of time. He has the possibility to become part of time at His will. In addition He has the power to cease time and become timeless again.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
but the real question is does he have the power to microwave a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
@christPsychotic That depends on how you define existence. God would exist outside of space and time, so he would be eternal and omnipresent.
In other words, he's standing outside the event horizon of the black hole out universe is in. If he tossed in a banana peel, it would become a part of every particle in our universe. Of course, in an infinite fractal model we're standing outside god's universe as well. We could do the same. So really your god is our little bitch.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
"One would expect a designed universe to be friendly to life. However"

That is an emotional but not a logical conclusion. In fact the only thing one would expect from a designed universe is evidence for deisgn, not necessarily any specific feature. The fact that the earth looks unique is simply because God's purpose was a unique creation, not a ubiquitous one.
Deathclock
3.3 / 5 (7) May 01, 2012
"One would expect a designed universe to be friendly to life. However"

That is an emotional but not a logical conclusion. In fact the only thing one would expect from a designed universe is evidence for deisgn, not necessarily any specific feature. The fact that the earth looks unique is simply because God's purpose was a unique creation, not a ubiquitous one.


but there is no evidence of deisgn, or design... in fact if I designed humans with all of their flaws I would commit hara-kiri out of shame. As an engineer I try to minimize the flaws in my design, humans are so flawed it is unbelievable. We naturally develop 4 too many teeth to fit in our mouths for christ sake! Evolution perfectly explains why this is the case, but your belief in a perfect god who created us mistakenly, or worse, intentionally, with all of these flaws doesn't make a lick of sense.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.2 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012
1

That depends on how you define existence. God would exist outside of space and time, so he would be eternal and omnipresent.

2

God is a necessary Being, and His attributes flow logically from His role as creator an designer of the universe and life.

.....
5

The beste explanation is that God existed timeless before the creation of the universe and started to exist in time at the moment of creation of time. He has the possibility to become part of time at His will. In addition He has the power to cease time and become timeless again.


Your whole argument stems from defining god however you wish. I could just as easily say Santa Claus has these properties as well. However, there is no evidence for any of the above statements. They are just your opinion.
okyesno
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2012
I was not talking about any of your degenerated front teeth at all.

There is ample evidence and general agreement amoung scientists that the universe is finely tuned. The best example would be the extreme fine tuning of the laws of physics. Literally hundreds of parameters and initial values are finely tuned so that if only one of them differs by just a minute fraction, the universe would not even exist and stable matter would be impossible.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
Organisms, unlike designed systems, are self-constructing in an environmental context. Points that suggest a natural basis for organic life are:

1) Life is wasteful. Most organisms do not reproduce and most fertilized zygotes die before much growth takes place. A fine-tuned process would be expected to minimize this waste.

2) Life includes many examples of systems that are jury-rigged out of parts that were used for another purpose. These are what we would expect from evolution, not from an intelligent designer. For example, orchids provide a platform on which pollinating insects are to land, and the stem of the flower has formed a half twist to move the platform to the lower side of the flower.

3) Life is highly variable. In almost every species, there is a spread of values for anything one cares to measure. The "information" that specifies life is of very low tolerance in engineering terms.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
(cont)

4) Life is difficult and involves suffering. If life is designed, death, disease, and decay also must be designed, since they are integral parts of life. Of course, many designed things are also nasty (certain weapons), but if the fine-tuner is supposed to have moral standards, this is added support against the fine-tuning hypothesis.

okyesno
1 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012

Your whole argument stems from defining god however you wish. I could just as easily say Santa Claus has these properties as well. However, there is no evidence for any of the above statements. They are just your opinion.


No, the definition of God as an immaterial, omnipotent and intelligent Mind has been generally accepted since the time of Aristotle. You will find the very same definition with people like Newton, Hegel, Kant and Einstein.

If you think the same applies to Santa Claus then please provide proof. Santa Claus is man living on the north pole with his reindeer. Ontologically very different from God.

Your atheism is also just your opinion, the colliding atoms in your brain just give you the illusion that you are correct. You see, ad hominems are not valid arguments.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.2 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012

Your whole argument stems from defining god however you wish. I could just as easily say Santa Claus has these properties as well. However, there is no evidence for any of the above statements. They are just your opinion.


No, the definition of God as an immaterial, omnipotent and intelligent Mind has been generally accepted since the time of

.....

Your atheism is also just your opinion, the colliding atoms in your brain just give you the illusion that you are correct. You see, ad hominems are not valid arguments.


Ah, but I am willing (as a rational being) to admit the possibility of a god existing, though I assign an infinitesimal small probability to this likelihood based on the evidence. I don't think you will admit the same.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
"Life is wasteful"

That is patently false. Every bit of organic material is re-used in nature, and biological systems are one of the most energy efficient in the universe. All the cradle to cradle and other ecological concepts are adopted from nature, not from machines.
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) May 01, 2012
"I don't think you will admit the same."

As a rational person I would assign an infinitesimally small possibility to the non-existence of God. All the evidence from cosmology, physics, morality, anthropology, medicine, history and biology and a host of other fields are consistent with a creator God, not with atheism.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
There are at least 10 mistakes made by proponents of fine-tuning. These occur in areas of physics, cosmology, probability theory, and data analysis:

1) They make fine-tuning claims based on the parameters of our universe and our form of life, ignoring the possibility of other life forms.

2) They claim fine-tuning for physics constants/parameters, for which the values are arbitrary, i.e., the physical laws of nature are simply physicists descriptions of certain symmetries observed in nature as they quantify the patterns that emerge from their measurements.

3) They assert fine-tuning for quantities, such as the ratio of electrons to protons, the expansion rate of the universe, and the mass density of the universe, when the values are set, on a precise basis, by cosmological physics.

4) They assert the relative strength (the ratio) of the electromagnetic to the gravitational force is fine-tuned, when, in fact, this quantity has not been universally defined.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
(cont)

5) They assert that an excited state of the carbon nucleus has to be fine-tuned for stars to produce the carbon needed for life, when calculations show a wide range of values for the energy level of that state.

6) They claim fine-tuning for the masses of elementary particles, when the ranges of these masses are set by well-established physics and are sufficiently constrained to be conducive to some form of life.

7) They assume the strengths of the various forces are constants that can be independently varied when calculating probabilities. In fact, they vary with energy, and their relative values and energy dependencies are established in ranges that make at least some kind of life possible.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.9 / 5 (7) May 01, 2012
(cont)

8) They make a serious analytical mistake in always varying just a single parameter while assuming all the other parameters under investigation remain fixed rather than allowing all parameters to vary simultaneously (which allows a change in one parameter to be compensated for by a change in another, opening up more space for variability in values). They compound this mistake by proceeding to calculate meaningless probabilities based on the erroneous assumption that all the parameters are independent.

9) They misunderstand and misuse probability theory.

10) They claim many parameters of earth and the solar system are fine-tuned for life, failing to consider that with the hundreds of millions of planets that likely exist in the visible universe, and the countless number beyond our horizon, some planets with the properties needed for life are likely to occur.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.9 / 5 (7) May 01, 2012
There is ample evidence and general agreement amoung scientists that the universe is finely tuned. The best example would be the extreme fine tuning of the laws of physics. Literally hundreds of parameters and initial values are finely tuned so that if only one of them differs by just a minute fraction, the universe would not even exist and stable matter would be impossible.


Several physicists have conducted computer simulation experiments to obtain a broad perspective for what a universe with constants higher and lower in value than those we now have would be like, including the likelihood of the formation of life. One researcher commented that the physical properties of matter, from the dimensions of atoms to the length of the day and year, can be grossly estimated from the values of just four fundamental constants. These are the strengths of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions and the masses of the electron and proton.
okyesno
1 / 5 (8) May 01, 2012
"They make fine-tuning claims based on the parameters of our universe and our form of life, ignoring the possibility of other life forms"

What other universe do you know of? What other forms of biological life do you know apart from those on earth? In fact stable matter would not even be possible without the extreme fine tuning, let alone life.

"the values are set, on a precise basis, by cosmological physics"

That is just false. The laws of physics allow for almost any combination of parameters and initial values. General relativity combined with an expanding universe leads to around exp(500) possible solutions, all of them equally mathematically valid.
EverythingsJustATheory
3.9 / 5 (7) May 01, 2012
(cont)

By conducting computer simulations that varied the above four constants (as representative of the properties of our universe) yields results that suggest that the assumptions of fine-tuning are probably not necessary for life to emerge.

Using a sample of 10,000 universes, with values for the four parameters that were generated randomly from a range five orders of magnitude above to five orders of magnitude below their present values in our universe (total range of ten orders of magnitude), the modeling effort provided estimates of the fraction of universes that should have properties that allow for some form of life to occur. The resulting distribution of stellar lifetimes for these 10,000 universes showed that over half the universes had stars that lived at least a billion years.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
"Several physicists have conducted computer simulation experiments"

Ah, computer simulations. That means it must be true of course. We are talking about fine tuning and not gross tuning. There is no greater garbage than the electronic fairy tales of tax payer funded computer models.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
I'll repeat this one since you may have skimmed over it:

8) They make a serious analytical mistake in always varying just a single parameter while assuming all the other parameters under investigation remain fixed rather than allowing all parameters to vary simultaneously (which allows a change in one parameter to be compensated for by a change in another, opening up more space for variability in values). They compound this mistake by proceeding to calculate meaningless probabilities based on the erroneous assumption that all the parameters are independent.
EverythingsJustATheory
4.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
Computer models are never proof, however, they can provide useful information.

I'm a systems engineer and we have a saying: "All models are wrong, some are useful."
okyesno
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2012
The computer models just show a misunderstanding of what the fine tuning argument actually is. The fine tuning argument does not deny that no other (life-as-we-know-it prohibiting) universe is possible, but that this universe with these parameters is extremely unlikely to arise by chance, even in a multiverse scenario.
EverythingsJustATheory
4 / 5 (4) May 01, 2012
One of the premises of the fine-tuning hypothesis is that, since most hypothetical naturalistic universes are not fine-tuned for life, if a universe comes into existence according to natural law, the probability of that universe being 'fine-tuned' is very low. Expressed in the language of probability theory, this statement is written as Pr(F|N)<<1, where:
N = the universe is governed solely by naturalistic law,
F = the universe is fine-tuned for life, and
Pr(F|N) denotes a conditional probability that is interpreted as: the probability that F is true, given that N is true. A probability of 1 is a certainty, and a probability much lower than 1 (<<1) means that Fs occurrence is very unlikely.

Fine-tuners then make the mistake of turning the probability statement around and claiming that, if the probability is very small that a randomly-selected universe would be fine-tuned for life, given naturalism, it must also be the case that the probability that naturalism is true,
EverythingsJustATheory
4 / 5 (4) May 01, 2012
cont...

, given the observed fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life, is also very small., i.e., Pr(N|F)<<1. But this is an entirely different statement that does not logically follow from the first one above. A simple example will suffice to show this:
Let A="I am holding a Royal Flush" and let B="I will win the poker hand."
It is evident that P(A|B) is nearly 0. Almost all poker hands are won with hands other than a Royal Flush. On the other hand, it is equally clear that P(B|A) is nearly 1. If you have a Royal Flush, you are virtually certain to win the poker hand.

Interchanging F and N and assuming the same result is not a valid logical operation. It constitutes an elementary blunder in probability theory. This mistake is due to confusing two entirely different conditional probabilities. Many actual outcomes are, in fact, improbable, but it does not follow that the hypotheses that they are conditioned upon are themselves highly improbable.
EverythingsJustATheory
4 / 5 (4) May 01, 2012
cont...

In fact, Pr(N|F) could be quite high. We dont know for sure, but the probability should not be prejudged.
Anorion
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2012
what is interesting its that all scans show that aging induce neuron loss and deterioration. neuron number and quality is inversely proportional to the age of the brain. and faith in god and other fairy tales is proportional to age.
as the age rise, number and quality of neurons lower, faith in god and other fairy tales rise. so the faith in god and other fairy tales is inversely proportional to the number and quality of neurons.

Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2012
(cont)

By conducting computer simulations that varied the above four constants (as representative of the properties of our universe) yields results that suggest that the assumptions of fine-tuning are probably not necessary for life to emerge.

Using a sample of 10,000 universes, with values for the four parameters that were generated randomly from a range five orders of magnitude above to five orders of magnitude below their present values in our universe (total range of ten orders of magnitude), the modeling effort provided estimates of the fraction of universes that should have properties that allow for some form of life to occur. The resulting distribution of stellar lifetimes for these 10,000 universes showed that over half the universes had stars that lived at least a billion years.


That's pretty amazing, I had not heard of this before!
okyesno
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2012
The use of probability calculus for fine tuning should be based on Bayes theorem, not just basic chances. It would include at least the chance that the universe is fine tuned if naturalism is true given the specific evidence for fine tuning. These conditional chances are now missing. Based on a mathematical analysis of a multiverse scenario, Sir Roger Penrose gives the likelihood (or the unlikelihood) of an anthropic universe as 1 in 10^(10^123).
okyesno
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2012
Stenger's claims that the universe is not finely tuned have shown to be fallacious and based on arbitrary assumptions. These assumptions of course were the basis for his computer simulations about stellar evolution. His denial of the existence of fine tuning is not shared by most cosmologists and he does not agree with much of standard cosmology. A devastating critique of Stengers simulations is found here:

arXiv:1112.4647v1
EverythingsJustATheory
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2012
Although one may not doubt that Penrose's figure of 1:10^10^123 is a good stab at the relative volumes in phase space (i.e., the collection of all possible universes), this value, in and of itself does not give us the probability that, given a random selection of points in phase space, ours would be chosen. Nor has it ever been demonstrated that the origin of the universe would include some sort of random processes whereby the values of the fundamental constants were determined.

Why should we not treat the Penrose figure as describing the improbability of our universe? Because any calculation of any probability requires a knowledge of the relevant probability densities. So, the calculation of our particular universe existing would require expressions for the probability densities for various universe scenarios. And I think it is safe to say that nobody knows what the probability densities are at this time, or even if the concept of "various universe scenarios" is at all meaningful.
EverythingsJustATheory
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2012
Stenger's claims that the universe is not finely tuned have shown to be fallacious and based on arbitrary assumptions. These assumptions of course were the basis for his computer simulations about stellar evolution. His denial of the existence of fine tuning is not shared by most cosmologists and he does not agree with much of standard cosmology. A devastating critique of Stengers simulations is found here:

arXiv:1112.4647v1


Stenger has responded to this critique and discredited each argument. Moreover, many of the physicists that Barnes claims believe in fine-tuning have not disputed one claim of Stenger's and several were consulted in writing his book.
okyesno
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2012
I disagree that Stenger has really refuted Barnes (or others with similar critcism). All he really does is accuse them not having understood his own arguments. Barnes has given a very detailed refutation which is treated only supeficially in Stengers answer. It strikes me as being written hastily and containing some hubrus towards Barnes. I see no real rebuttal of Barnes powerful argument about Stengers use probability functions full of arbitray assumptions.