Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Another conversation with almost atheist

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 72 posts ] 
Another conversation with almost atheist
Author Message
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2198Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

itsdemtitans wrote:As to how is "either it had a beginning or always existed" a false dichotomy, my understanding is that the universe can actually be both. Granted, I'm an idiot on this subject, but I've heard that since the Universe started from a signularity, time was under the effect of emense gravity and didn't really apply. Because of this, the universe obviously can have a beginning and be eternal at the same time.


To clarify, the singularity has never been established and, even if it were, it would only mean that the singularity didn't experience time, not that there was no time.

The Hawking-Hartle 'no boundary' model has time emerging from what was previously a spatial dimension but, other than that, all extant cosmologies have time prior to the Planck time.

I explain this in some considerable depth in the 'before the big bang' thread.
Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:56 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

To my dear Almost Atheist. Greetings! I almost forgot about you. You came back to amuse us all again with the same questions we have answered, but I will do it again.

Say will you answer my questions for a change?
Image

All these are YES or NO questions

1. What do you think about my explanation of the synthesis of ribonucleotides (see here)? Is it a sufficient explanation that fulfills your satisfaction?


YES = "It is a sufficient explanation, thank your for it."
or
NO and if so, explain why not.


2. During the discussion you said that a zero energy universe is pseudoscience and you cited a wikipedia article of zero-point energy which you said was pseudoscience. However you made two errors.

One: The zero energy universe isn't the same as the zero point energy.
Two: I looked at the wiki article, it doesn't say that the zero point energy is pseudoscience. What it does say is and I quote:
As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial. However, the ability to harness zero point energy for useful work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large.[14][15] Zero-point energy is, by definition, a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go.[14] Thus, none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point energy.[16] Nevertheless, there have been numerous claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy. None of these claims has ever been validated by the scientific community.[17]

Thus the existence of zero-point energy is scientifically established. The pseudoscience the article is referring to is about claims that this energy can be utilized, which it can't but the energy still exists.

Would you honestly correct yourself on these errors?

YES = "I admit that I made an error, thanks for correcting me"
or
NO, if so then what happened to your honesty?


3. If humans didn't come from apes then why are humans still apes? Which isn't semantics, I can demonstrate that just like I can demonstrate that it isn't semantics to say that humans are still mammals. You said you didn't feel like we had enough evidence to conclude common ancestry. Well I don't feel that either way, I can demonstrate that. We can go much deeper in the systematic classification of life, the best evidence of common ancestry. Are you interested in that?

YES = "I would like to see that"
or
NO, if so than apparently you are not interested in evidence.


4. This is a point I liked to go deeper during the discussion about macro evolution. Would you accept that macro evolution (speciation) has been observed?

YES = "I accept that macroevolution has been observed"
or
NO, if so than I can show you several instances when they have been, and I can also show you that the definition of macro evolution isn't ambiguous in biology as creationists want to turn it out to be like their bogus notion of "created kinds".


almost atheist wrote:i have a few assignments for you to do

Image
almost atheist wrote:1. explain to me how this a false dichotomy

if something exists it either
A. always existed
B. came into existence


A true dichotomy is given as
A. X
B. Not X

Your dichotomy doesn't do that. That doesn't mean it is a false dichotomy though. The big problem is that existence is very loosely defined, for example you could say I didn't exist 100 years ago, but the atoms that make up my body did, so in this case I came into existence AND I always existed, in different contexts.
And it gets even weirder when it comes to the origins of the universe. At the start of the big bang there was an epoch called the planck epoch, it lasted for
10^-43 seconds.
That is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second.
Now existence can only be defined if an something has a definitive location in space and time, but during the planck era that wasn't the case. Space and time didn't make sense back then, which is why scientists have such a trouble figuring out what exactly happened during the planck epoch. One solution would be to unify all the four fundamental forces plus quantum theory and theory of relativity under a unifying theory of everything. But we still don't have that yet.
Even though right now existence didn't make sense in the early universe, it sure as hell doesn't make sense to ask what happened "before" or "outside" the universe. That would be the same as asking to draw a map south of the south pole. There was no before, the universe always existed, because when there is time, the universe existed.
But even if we don't know the answer to everything, that isn't an excuse to blame something we don't yet understand (like the origin of the universe) on
PURE FREAKING....
Image

almost atheist wrote:2. assuming you couldn't get passed my first task, then my next task is for you to explain to me how
If A is caused by an unreachable cause, then is it possible for A to exist?


What does that even mean "unreachable cause"?

Causation doesn't make sense in terms of the origin of time and space. Think about that. Especially when quantum mechanics, which was very important at the beginning of the universe, aren't dominated by causal phenomenon, but random spontaneous effects with no determinism nor causation (which is why Einstein hated quantum theory, since the math describing it are all probabilistic)


almost atheist wrote:3. Assuming your answer to the second task was no, then you just confirmed that a infinite regression is not possible. Now my question to you is

Since we exist, did we always exist, or did we come into existence?


But 1 and 2 are answered very differently than you assumed, aren't they?
If you want to assert that the infinite regression isn't possible,
it is not our job to demonstrate that you are wrong,
it is your job to demonstrate that you are right.
Image
Hitchens's Razor is a bitch.

almost atheist wrote:4. Assuming you actually accept the evidence of the big bang, it's logical to think we came into existence, now the question is how??????....did we come from something, or perhaps we came from nothing....now i want you to...
Imagine, something coming from "nothing"


Can't, and it doesn't matter if I can't imagine it. I can't imagine that out of the 3 million sperm cells inside the ejaculation of your daddy inside the womb of your mother, the one that had your unique genetic make-up somehow managed to out swing the other millions of his brothers. I can't imagine the vastness of the universe where every second one star explodes into oblivion, but that doesn't matter. Those things still happen. Don't use imagination, use science.

As for something from nothing, don't know wether it did or didn't. Imagination doesn't help one bit to determine that.

almost atheist wrote:that means that "nothing" has the properties to create something....ANYTHING that has PROPERTIES IS SOMETHING.... thereby that "nothing" you just thought of is actually a something, to be more precise, it would be a void with the potential to create something. So something from nothing is by definition impossible.


You shoot yourself in your own foot as I have pointed out before. If nothing has no properties, then it impossible for anyone to describe what it is, including you. When you say that the nothing Laurence Krauss is talking about, isn't really nothing, because true nothing is ... you are already ascribing properties on your own, without realizing it. If you follow your own "no property" definition, than you don't know what nothing means (nobody can), thus you have no grounds to determine what it can or can't do. And if you do determine what it can or cannot do, as in nothing cannot produce something, you are once again ascribing properties to it without realizing.

And this doesn't even touch on the problem observing a nothing, so how can you tell what it is and what it can't or cannot do?

almost atheist wrote:Thereby my point is, something comes from something.... To avoid the endless regression which we already agreed (hopefully) was irrational


Nobody agreed with you on that, because you haven't demonstrated that is the case.

almost atheist wrote:we must conclude that there was a "prime something" to start the universe, So before we move on, does everyone agree with logic behind the "prime something" ? better known as the "prime mover"


No one agrees with that "logic" either, for the same reason.
If your prime mover is eternal, it is also an infinite regression.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:16 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2767Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Greetings,

Just a minor correction.

When you referred to "10^43", you actually meant 10^-43 or 10-43.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:51 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Just a minor correction.

When you referred to "10^43", you actually meant 10^-43 or 10-43.

Kindest regards,

James


Yeah, thanks.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:26 am
almost atheistPosts: 9Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 9:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Okay so I’m going to reply to all the points you guys made, I will address you directly so scroll down until you see your name

@gnug15 said:

//Whatever else, if you turn this "prime something" into a "prime mover", or well, God, you're adding infinite complexity to a question that is already complex.//

My reply:
That’s irrelevant, even if we assume adding God to the equation makes thing more complex doesn’t negate rather or not it’s the truth. Just because you CHOOSE to operate with the self-defeating occam razor, doesn’t mean I have to. Occam razor is an ASSUMPTION predicated on the least amount of ASSUMPTIONS. Why would you add an assumption if you’re trying to get rid of assumptions?

@hackenslash
Your example of “something from nothing” is actually something from something, and you essentially agreed with everything else I said. However to correct myself, nothing cannot have any PHYSICAL properties.

@laurens
Also a good point, I would describe nothing as infinite chaos, and something as infinite complexity. And what I meant to say is that nothing cannot have any Physical properties. Now I realize it would be fallacious to apply the same rules inside the universe to outside the universe, but for existence in and of itself requires a prime mover, or eternal ideals. Both of these characteristics would seem Godlike to me.

@ness
You essentially had the same criticisms, plus we debate stuff all the time.

In conclusion, one might say that infinite multi verse is just a plausible as a God, In fact I could imagine infinite many universes popping in and out of existence, however the stream a pantheistic point of view would seem plausible if that were the case. So now unless you guys have another idea, I think we should discuss the plausibility of a prime mover, vs infinite multiverse.
Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:05 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2494Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

thenexttodie wrote:
Bullshit. Basically what Crapnslash is eventually going to tell will be that if something exists elsewhere, then it can have an effect somewhere. Something like that. Just wait.


MOD NOTE:

I put the relevant part in bold.

Stop it with juvenile crap like that. Or else you're gonna be thenextguywhogotbanned.

- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:17 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2934Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

almost atheist wrote:@laurens
Also a good point, I would describe nothing as infinite chaos, and something as infinite complexity. And what I meant to say is that nothing cannot have any Physical properties. Now I realize it would be fallacious to apply the same rules inside the universe to outside the universe, but for existence in and of itself requires a prime mover, or eternal ideals. Both of these characteristics would seem Godlike to me.


So in your first sentence you say nothing is infinitely chaotic, but it cannot have a physical property. What then do you mean by infinite, or chaotic? Aren't infinite and chaotic both properties that we would ascribe to a something?

What is a prime mover? What exactly do you mean? So far as I've seen you've just stuck the words 'prime' and 'mover' together and said that the universe has to have one. If I say the universe needs an elevated mechanistic function it sounds cool, but it's just three words I've put together in a row and I've asserted that the universe needs one.

What I think you mean to say is the universe needs a god because that's what you believe.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:01 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2494Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

almost atheist wrote:Okay so I’m going to reply to all the points you guys made, I will address you directly so scroll down until you see your name

@gnug15 said:

//Whatever else, if you turn this "prime something" into a "prime mover", or well, God, you're adding infinite complexity to a question that is already complex.//

My reply:
That’s irrelevant, even if we assume adding God to the equation makes thing more complex doesn’t negate rather or not it’s the truth. Just because you CHOOSE to operate with the self-defeating occam razor, doesn’t mean I have to. Occam razor is an ASSUMPTION predicated on the least amount of ASSUMPTIONS. Why would you add an assumption if you’re trying to get rid of assumptions?



Sure, increasing the complexity of the equation by adding God does indeed say anything about whether it's true or not. But then why add God at all? If we're discussing a prime something or a prime mover, then have we not reached the point in the conversation where we're basically saying: "Ok, so we have the universe, but we don't know where it came from, so therefor... prime something!"?

If the universe is all there is, then at least the universe has the universe to show for, so to speak.

If God is the prime mover, but he also only has the universe to show for, then how are we ever to know the difference?

Unless we have a reason to add God, then why add God?

I don't choose to operate with a Occam's razor. This is just a logical conclusion to a question about a primal cause.

I don't want to remove God from the equation because of Occam's razor. I want to remove God from the equation because there is no evidence for God, and also because the only reason I ever hear for adding God is an emotional reason.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:10 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

If you have any integrity left in you then answer my questions just like I have answered yours, multiple times.

All these are YES or NO questions

1. What do you think about my explanation of the synthesis of ribonucleotides (see here)? Is it a sufficient explanation that fulfills your satisfaction?


YES = "It is a sufficient explanation, thank your for it."
or
NO and if so, explain why not.


2. During the discussion you said that a zero energy universe is pseudoscience and you cited a wikipedia article of zero-point energy which you said was pseudoscience. However you made two errors.

One: The zero energy universe isn't the same as the zero point energy.
Two: I looked at the wiki article, it doesn't say that the zero point energy is pseudoscience. What it does say is and I quote:
As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial. However, the ability to harness zero point energy for useful work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large.[14][15] Zero-point energy is, by definition, a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go.[14] Thus, none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point energy.[16] Nevertheless, there have been numerous claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy. None of these claims has ever been validated by the scientific community.[17]

Thus the existence of zero-point energy is scientifically established. The pseudoscience the article is referring to is about claims that this energy can be utilized, which it can't but the energy still exists.

Would you honestly correct yourself on these errors?

YES = "I admit that I made an error, thanks for correcting me"
or
NO, if so then what happened to your honesty?


3. If humans didn't come from apes then why are humans still apes? Which isn't semantics, I can demonstrate that just like I can demonstrate that it isn't semantics to say that humans are still mammals. You said you didn't feel like we had enough evidence to conclude common ancestry. Well I don't feel that either way, I can demonstrate that. We can go much deeper in the systematic classification of life, the best evidence of common ancestry. Are you interested in that?

YES = "I would like to see that"
or
NO, if so than apparently you are not interested in evidence.


4. This is a point I liked to go deeper during the discussion about macro evolution. Would you accept that macro evolution (speciation) has been observed?

YES = "I accept that macroevolution has been observed"
or
NO, if so than I can show you several instances when they have been, and I can also show you that the definition of macro evolution isn't ambiguous in biology as creationists want to turn it out to be like their bogus notion of "created kinds".



almost atheist wrote:You essentially had the same criticisms, plus we debate stuff all the time.


Because you had the same questions. Obviously they are going to have the same answers.

almost atheist wrote:In conclusion,


Whoa, wait a minute. How the fuck can you jump to a conclusion without the background first like evidence and argumentation?

almost atheist wrote:one might say that infinite multi verse is just a plausible as a God,


I would say it is more plausible as God, because we already have one example of a universe thus it isn't as bold to assert the existence of another universe as opposed to assert the existence of something we don't even have anything that is remotely comparable to it, like a God.

But than again, non-sequitur, I haven't even mention multi-verse theory so why bring it up?

(Before you are going to straw man me by saying I accept the multiverse theory on faith, think again. I didn't say I accepted it, I said I would say it is more plausible than God in the same sense I would say Bigfoot is more plausible than God)

almost atheist wrote:In fact I could imagine infinite many universes popping in and out of existence, however the stream a pantheistic point of view would seem plausible if that were the case.


Okay, now suddenly a wild pantheistic point of view appears. How many non-sequiturs are you going to present here?

almost atheist wrote:So now unless you guys have another idea, I think we should discuss the plausibility of a prime mover, vs infinite multiverse.


I have a better idea. Let's start with:

First: you answering my questions, because it would be fair since I have answered yours many times.

Second: You actually addressing the points, or acknowledging them at least, that were made by me that addresses your "Assignments" and not diverting to another topic, like multiverse theory, in order to ignore said points.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:00 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

I also like to point this out, even though it was directed at Hackenslash.

Almost Atheist wrote:@hackenslash
Your example of “something from nothing” is actually something from something, and you essentially agreed with everything else I said. However to correct myself, nothing cannot have any PHYSICAL properties.


First, nothing = no properties

Almost Atheist wrote:1. I stand by the claim "something" cannot come from "nothing"

For you to understand why, you must READ WHAT I SAY CAREFULLY. Okay, "nothing" cannot have properties? Do we all agree? Okay good, so if "nothing" can create something, then BY DEFINITION nothing has the ability to create something...therefore, "nothing" is not really "nothing" IN FACT, defining "nothing" is nonsensical to define because "nothing" does not exist.

Almost Atheist wrote:Imagine, something coming from "nothing"...that means that "nothing" has the properties to create something....ANYTHING that has PROPERTIES IS SOMETHING.... thereby that "nothing" you just thought of is actually a something, to be more precise, it would be a void with the potential to create something. So something from nothing is by definition impossible. Thereby my point is, something comes from something.... To avoid the endless regression which we already agreed (hopefully) was irrational we must conclude that there was a "prime something" to start the universe, So before we move on, does everyone agree with logic behind the "prime something" ? better known as the "prime mover"


Now suddenly, nothing = No PHYSICAL properties.

Notice the fallacy that was just committed:
Image
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:26 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2198Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

almost atheist wrote:Your example of “something from nothing” is actually something from something,


No, it really isn't. If you think that, you've missed the point entirely.

and you essentially agreed with everything else I said.


No, I really didn't.
Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:19 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 208Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another conversation with almost atheist

Wow, it has almost been over a month and still no answer to my questions?
Image
All these are YES or NO questions

1. What do you think about my explanation of the synthesis of ribonucleotides (see here)? Is it a sufficient explanation that fulfills your satisfaction?


YES = "It is a sufficient explanation, thank your for it."
or
NO and if so, explain why not.


2. During the discussion you said that a zero energy universe is pseudoscience and you cited a wikipedia article of zero-point energy which you said was pseudoscience. However you made two errors.

One: The zero energy universe isn't the same as the zero point energy.
Two: I looked at the wiki article, it doesn't say that the zero point energy is pseudoscience. What it does say is and I quote:
As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial. However, the ability to harness zero point energy for useful work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large.[14][15] Zero-point energy is, by definition, a minimum energy below which a thermodynamic system can never go.[14] Thus, none of this energy can be withdrawn without altering the system to a different form in which the system has a lower zero-point energy.[16] Nevertheless, there have been numerous claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy. None of these claims has ever been validated by the scientific community.[17]

Thus the existence of zero-point energy is scientifically established. The pseudoscience the article is referring to is about claims that this energy can be utilized, which it can't but the energy still exists.

Would you honestly correct yourself on these errors?

YES = "I admit that I made an error, thanks for correcting me"
or
NO, if so then what happened to your honesty?


3. If humans didn't come from apes then why are humans still apes? Which isn't semantics, I can demonstrate that just like I can demonstrate that it isn't semantics to say that humans are still mammals. You said you didn't feel like we had enough evidence to conclude common ancestry. Well I don't feel that either way, I can demonstrate that. We can go much deeper in the systematic classification of life, the best evidence of common ancestry. Are you interested in that?

YES = "I would like to see that"
or
NO, if so than apparently you are not interested in evidence.


4. This is a point I liked to go deeper during the discussion about macro evolution. Would you accept that macro evolution (speciation) has been observed?

YES = "I accept that macroevolution has been observed"
or
NO, if so than I can show you several instances when they have been, and I can also show you that the definition of macro evolution isn't ambiguous in biology as creationists want to turn it out to be like their bogus notion of "created kinds".
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:58 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 72 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
cron