The Atheism Delusion

[ellapenella]

On 8/14/2020 at 8:44 AM, Cookie Monster said:

I will start by setting out my views.

1. Nothingness can never exist because in order for a thing to exist it needs to be made from something. Hence, nothingness is an impossible state. It has never existed and will never exist. The minimum that could ever exist would be one thing (which is the starting place of my views on Monism). Now if we think about it in order for one thing to exist then it needs somewhere to exist at, needs a point in time to exist at, as well of course as being made from something. That is the creation of space, time, and matter.

 

Trent Horn has a course on creatio ex nihilo , creation from nothing, meaning, God did not create from preexisting matter, says he has evidence on that  from science,philosophy and from theology. 

I read about it here 

https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/creation-from-nothing

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lightly]

2 hours ago, Will do said:

 

Perhaps space is infinite and filled up with things eventhough there are areas in space where the universe hasn't yet expanded into out beyond its current perimeter that are non-pervaded where space exists but nothing is in it.

 

 

 

   Your wondering if the current 'perimeter' of the space in our universe is expanding into more space?   I dunno... . It doesn't sound right somehow.

I guess the finiteness of space remains unanswered??   I lean toward a whole and finite universe which somehow curls back into itself...and has no perimeter.      <  This idea illiminates the need for some great somethingness, or nothingness, for the UNIVERSE to expand into.   !     

     But ya, infinity is an interesting idea too !

Edited August 18, 2020 by lightly

[Duke Wellington]

20 minutes ago, ellapenella said:

Trent Horn has a course on creatio ex nihilo , creation from nothing, meaning, God did not create from preexisting matter, says he has evidence on that  from science,philosophy and from theology. 

I read about it here 

https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/creation-from-nothing

My view of God doesn`t match that of many religions.

I dont see it as a entity which has consciously intended to create the universe, more as an automatic process originating from nothingness being impossible. With nothingness being impossible, at least one thing must always exist. I have the universe coming from that `one thing` to interdependently enable its existence. And then as the universe builds up with those things needed to interdependently support its existence, they each in turn need to interdependently support their own existence too.

Early I stated that mathematics isn`t reality. It has no physical existence, it is neither made from matter or energy. It is an abstract tool that human beings have created to describe objects and make predictions regarding them. As a descriptive and predictive tool it is good enough to have gotten us to the Moon and to be here typing on our computers. But it is not a perfect descriptive and predictive tool, it has its problems. For those who cannot grasp that it has the following three problems:

Irrational Numbers: Physicists know if we take an aspect of reality and continuously keep dividing it then we reach a point at which it cannot be divided any further. In essence, we have reached its fundamental building blocks. They exist for matter which we call atomic particles, it exists for space and time which are Planck scale units. What it means is that irrational numbers dont exist in reality. If we calculate the area of a circle using the appropriate equation we get an answer with infinite decimal places (an irrational number). Yet as area comes in building blocks such an answer clearly does not describe the area of a circle. But then again, perfect circles dont exist either which is another problem with maths.

Limited Interdependence: Maths/physics takes an equation describing the relationship between a set of variables and puts them inside a box. It pretends that everything else left outside that box has no bearing on what is now inside. Take General Relativity as an example. The equations allow the gravitational attraction between two objects to be calculated. Lets say we do that for the Earth and Moon. Well thats nice, but what about what is left outside the box? The Sun has an impact, the other planets have an impact, in fact every known particle in the universe has an impact, because they all have an associated gravity field. Hence the equations used for General Relativity to calculate the gravitational attraction between two objects dont actually give the answer for that attraction. The equations cannot, its impossible. This type of problem exists with all equations in physics.

Ideas or Objects: Most of physics describes ideas, not objects that actually exist. That sounds nonsensical because we can clearly count a chair in our house calling it one chair. Then count another calling it two chairs. Then another calling it three, etc. But chairs are not actual objects that exist, they are ideas. Ideas about what trillions upon trillions of objects (in this instance called atoms) arranged in a particular way represent. When maths is used to describe ideas not objects then it is talking BS about BS. It takes things which dont exist like irrational numbers and limited interdependence (one set of BS) and uses it to describe an idea (the other BS). As its talking BS about BS the contradictions and illogical reasoning are hard to spot. If we get down to the things which really exist like atomic particles, Planck scale units, etc, we discover that classic mathematical equations are meaningless. The dont work, they dont describe accurately, they dont make accurate predictions. But due to the largeness of some ideas the difference is only ever so slight misleading people into thinking mathematical equations are perfect tools when they arent. Atomic particles dont work off deterministic mechanics. The incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are because one works with the fundamental quantities/units that actually exist, the other irrational numbers which are impossible in our universe.

Yet people cling to their maths with an inability to criticise it. Not because they are deliberately biased, but because they dont know any different. There are further problems with our physics too such as the problem with infinites. If we calculate the strength of attraction between too magnets the equations mean that as those two magnets reach an infinitely small distance apart from another the attraction between them both is infinite. Yet if you take two magnets and allow them to snap together you dont create an infinite explosion.

[Duke Wellington]

20 minutes ago, lightly said:

Your wondering if the current 'perimeter' of the space in our universe is expanding into more space?   I dunno... . It doesn't sound right somehow.

I guess the finiteness of space remains unanswered??   I lean toward a whole and finite universe which somehow curls back into itself...and has no perimeter.      <  This idea illiminates the need for some great somethingness, or nothingness, for the UNIVERSE to expand into.   !     

But ya, infinity is an interesting idea too !

My view is that the universe creates what it needs to support its own existence in a logically coherent way.

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

 

   Your wondering if the current 'perimeter' of the space in our universe is expanding into more space?   I dunno... . It doesn't sound right somehow.

I guess the finiteness of space remains unanswered??   I lean toward a whole and finite universe which somehow curls back into itself...and has no perimeter.      <  This idea illiminates the need for some great somethingness, or nothingness, for the UNIVERSE to expand into.   !     

     But ya, infinity is an interesting idea too !

 

What I was trying to say is that space is infinite and doesn't have a perimeter.

However it isn't entirely pervaded or occupied with material yet but is limited to what exists in the finite universe as it is today later to expand out in ways we can only imagine.

Like an onion that grows in size with more and more layers being added as time (and eternity) move into the future.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Will do

[ellapenella]

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

 

I dont see it as a entity which has consciously intended to create the universe, more as an automatic process originating from nothingness being impossible. With nothingness being impossible, at least one thing must always exist. I have the universe coming from that `one thing` to interdependently enable its existence. And then as the universe builds up with those things needed to interdependently support its existence, they each in turn need to interdependently support their own existence too.

Early I stated that mathematics isn`t reality. It has no physical existence, it is neither made from matter or energy. It is an abstract tool that human beings have created to describe objects and make predictions regarding them. As a descriptive and predictive tool it is good enough to have gotten us to the Moon and to be here typing on our computers. But it is not a perfect descriptive and predictive tool, it has its problems. For those who cannot grasp that it has the following three problems:

Irrational Numbers: Physicists know if we take an aspect of reality and continuously keep dividing it then we reach a point at which it cannot be divided any further. In essence, we have reached its fundamental building blocks. They exist for matter which we call atomic particles, it exists for space and time which are Planck scale units. What it means is that irrational numbers dont exist in reality. If we calculate the area of a circle using the appropriate equation we get an answer with infinite decimal places (an irrational number). Yet as area comes in building blocks such an answer clearly does not describe the area of a circle. But then again, perfect circles dont exist either which is another problem with maths.

Limited Interdependence: Maths/physics takes an equation describing the relationship between a set of variables and puts them inside a box. It pretends that everything else left outside that box has no bearing on what is now inside. Take General Relativity as an example. The equations allow the gravitational attraction between two objects to be calculated. Lets say we do that for the Earth and Moon. Well thats nice, but what about what is left outside the box? The Sun has an impact, the other planets have an impact, in fact every known particle in the universe has an impact, because they all have an associated gravity field. Hence the equations used for General Relativity to calculate the gravitational attraction between two objects dont actually give the answer for that attraction. The equations cannot, its impossible. This type of problem exists with all equations in physics.

Ideas or Objects: Most of physics describes ideas, not objects that actually exist. That sounds nonsensical because we can clearly count a chair in our house calling it one chair. Then count another calling it two chairs. Then another calling it three, etc. But chairs are not actual objects that exist, they are ideas. Ideas about what trillions upon trillions of objects (in this instance called atoms) arranged in a particular way represent. When maths is used to describe ideas not objects then it is talking BS about BS. It takes things which dont exist like irrational numbers and limited interdependence (one set of BS) and uses it to describe an idea (the other BS). As its talking BS about BS the contradictions and illogical reasoning are hard to spot. If we get down to the things which really exist like atomic particles, Planck scale units, etc, we discover that classic mathematical equations are meaningless. The dont work, they dont describe accurately, they dont make accurate predictions. But due to the largeness of some ideas the difference is only ever so slight misleading people into thinking mathematical equations are perfect tools when they arent. Atomic particles dont work off deterministic mechanics. The incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are because one works with the fundamental quantities/units that actually exist, the other irrational numbers which are impossible in our universe.

Yet people cling to their maths with an inability to criticise it. Not because they are deliberately biased, but because they dont know any different. There are further problems with our physics too such as the problem with infinites. If we calculate the strength of attraction between too magnets the equations mean that as those two magnets reach an infinitely small distance apart from another the attraction between them both is infinite. Yet if you take two magnets and allow them to snap together you dont create an infinite explosion.

Quote

I dont see it as a entity which has consciously intended to create the universe, more as an automatic process originating from nothingness being impossible. With nothingness being impossible, at least one thing must always exist. I have the universe coming from that `one thing` to interdependently enable its existence. And then as the universe builds up with those things needed to interdependently support its existence, they each in turn need to interdependently support their own existence too.

I see it as God always existed , that  God exist wholly apart from his creation is my understanding.

 

Quote

My view of God doesn`t match that of many religions.

I think I see some of your views in here

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10483a.htm

Quote

Early I stated that mathematics isn`t reality. It has no physical existence, it is neither made from matter or energy. It is an abstract tool that human beings have created to describe objects and make predictions regarding them. As a descriptive and predictive tool it is good enough to have gotten us to the Moon and to be here typing on our computers. But it is not a perfect descriptive and predictive tool, it has its problems. For those who cannot grasp that it has the following three problems:

I agree.

 

 

[XenoFish]

Any attempt to create an objective version of god is a sign that faith is sorely lacking. 

[Tatetopa]

On 8/17/2020 at 12:30 PM, lightly said:

Yes  I meditate . .sometimes.      I've been known to pray .. . I mostly just give THANKS.   to whatwhohow ever.

Somehow I find that a feeling of gratitude is refreshing and strengthening even if it is just to thank a cool breeze on a hot day, it brings me a feeling of connectedness.

[Tatetopa]

19 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Good read here.

I like this paragraph, mainly I suppose because I agree with it.  Nothing is not the space between galaxies.  Nothing is no matter, no energy, no space, and no time, no cause and effect, no before.  And just maybe no outside and no center @Will do 

Hard to get a hold of, nothing there to grab as it were.

 

You might say it’s non-existence, but what do you mean non-existence of? Again, I would argue, when I talk about the universe from nothing, I’m talking about a universe in which not only no particles, no radiation existed, but no space and no time existed in what is now our universe; all of that came into existence. Now you can say well, did anything else exist? And I say well, that’s largely a semantic and maybe [a] useless question because it could be that there’s, it’s like, turtles all the way down, that there was other, that our universe arose out of a multiverse; or it could be that there was absolutely nothing—there was no space, no time, and space and time popped into existence. But it seems to bother people that you can talk about a universe not existing and then existing; but it doesn’t bother people that a photon emitted by lights that are on in the room I’m outside of right now didn’t exist before the atoms that emitted it. Our universe could just be a quantum version of that photon and yes, it bothers people because it doesn’t relate, it doesn’t agree with their classical notion of what nothing might be. Or nonexistence is problematic for them because they worry about cause and effect and things like that. But for example, if space and time didn’t exist before our Big Bang, then the whole notion of cause and effect has to go out the window. If there was no “before,” then you can ask about causes in that sense—that bothers people! And that’s okay; science is meant to bother people because it means we’re not thinking about things correctly. If it bothers you, then do something about it.

[Will Due]

46 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

and no center @Will do 

 

Wait, nothing has a center? Lol

Come on Tate. Everything has a center. Everything that has mass has a center of mass. So does the universe. 

The same way a black hole is the center of a galaxy, a sun is the center of a solar system, a nucleus is the center of an atom.

The center of the universe's mass, is the center of the universe. 

The question is, what's at the center of the universe?

 

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Will do

[Emma_Acid]

5 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

I dont see it as a entity which has consciously intended to create the universe, more as an automatic process originating from nothingness being impossible.

As I've pointed out, your idea of "nothing" is a nonsense. Do you want to go back and address the points myself and others have made in response to your original post?

[Emma_Acid]

4 minutes ago, Will do said:

Everything has a center. Everything that has mass has a center of mass. So does the universe. 

No, I'm afraid it doesn't. There is no "central point" to the universe. That idea is as out-dated as Cookie Monster's idea of the "big bang" exploding the universe into existence. It's a bit more complicated than all that.

[Emma_Acid]

5 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

There are further problems with our physics too such as the problem with infinites.

You obviously do not understand the science, so please don't try coming from that angle.

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

There is no "central point" to the universe. 

 

Is there a central point to a galaxy? You know, the center of its mass, usually considered to be a "black hole".

Likewise with a solar system? An atom? How about your body?

Everything that has mass has a center point of mass. That point in the universe is the "geographical" center of the universe. 

If it could be determined where and what makes up the mass of the universe, it would be a simple calculation to determine where the center of the universe is. 

Nothing complicated at all.

 

 

[Emma_Acid]

4 minutes ago, Will do said:

 

Is there a central point to a galaxy? You know, the center of its mass, usually considered to be a "black hole".

Likewise with a solar system? An atom? How about your body?

Everything that has mass has a center point of mass. That point in the universe is the "geographical" center of the universe. 

If it could be determined where and what makes up the mass of the universe, it would be a simple calculation to determine where the center of the universe is. 

Nothing complicated at all.

 

 

The "universe" is not an atom, a body or a galaxy.

I don't think it's controversial to say we don't even really know what "the universe" even is. When physicists talk about it, they mean the visible universe, which is not the same thing as the actual universe. Either way, there is no centre to it. Inflationary physics basically says that every point in space is the "centre" of the universe.

EDIT - this isn't me being difficult. it is well recognised in cosmology; the universe has no centre. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Emma_Acid

[Will Due]

13 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

The "universe" is not an atom, a body or a galaxy.

I don't think it's controversial to say we don't even really know what "the universe" even is. When physicists talk about it, they mean the visible universe, which is not the same thing as the actual universe. Either way, there is no centre to it. Inflationary physics basically says that every point in space is the "centre" of the universe.

EDIT - this isn't me being difficult. it is well recognised in cosmology; the universe has no centre. 

 

But you just said 

we don't even really know what "the universe" even is

I'm not trying to be difficult either but aren't you admitting that physicists don't really know much beyond what is local to our world that can be seen?

It doesn't make sense that something made of matter doesn't have a center of mass. Isn't the universe made of matter?

The laws of physics says everything that has mass has a center of mass. 

To be consistent why not the universe itself? 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Will do

[Emma_Acid]

21 minutes ago, Will do said:

I'm not trying to be difficult either but aren't you admitting that physicists don't really know much beyond what is local to our world that can be seen?

When physicists say "the universe", they  mean the visible universe - i.e. the light that has reached us since the inflationary period. We have no idea, and we will never know, what is outside of this visible sphere.

Quote

It doesn't make sense that something made of matter doesn't have a center of mass. Isn't the universe made of matter?

The universe did not form like a galaxy, star or planet, which clumped around a gravitational centre. The inflation of the universe did not have a centre. It sounds weird and contradictory to what we experience in every day life but that is how it is, universally.

One proof of this is the continued cosmic inflation - the universe is not expanding from a central point - it is expanding from every point. Every part of the universe is moving away from every other part - there is no centre to the expansion. 

Quote

The laws of physics says everything that has mass has a center of mass. 

Sure - if you understand the boundaries. And we do not understand the boundaries of the universe. As far as we know, the universe has no edge, and if you sped off for billions of years in one direction you may well end up looping back on yourself and ending up where you started. The universe is not structured in the way that you understand things like galaxies to be.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Emma_Acid

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

When physicists say "the universe", they  mean the visible universe - i.e. the light that has reached us since the inflationary period. We have no idea, and we will never know, what is outside of this visible sphere.

The universe did not form like a galaxy, star or planet, which clumped around a gravitational centre. The inflation of the universe did not have a centre. It sounds weird and contradictory to what we experience in every day life but that is how it is, universally.

Sure - if you understand the boundaries. And we do not understand the boundaries of the universe. As far as we know, the universe has no edge, and if you sped off for billions of years in one direction you may way end up looping back on yourself and ending up where you started. The universe is not structured in the way that you understand things like galaxies to be.

 

But can we agree at least, that the universe is made up of matter can't we? There probably are other things but we at least can agree that the material objects that exist within the universe are primarily what the universe is made up of can't we? 

At the moment our knowledge of what the universe really is and what all it's made of is highly limited so if what we know, that it's made of galaxies and other smaller material systems down to the atom, all having mass, why would it be illogical to apply the same law of physics that says there's always a center of mass for anything made of matter and apply it equally to the total mass that the universe is made of?

Everything else is the same, and everything that's the same is inside the universe so why wouldn't it be true for the universe itself too? Why is something so basic being dismissed out of hand?

I don't think the laws of physics work one way for the things inside the universe and another way for the universe in its entirety. That doesn't make sense. 

 

 

[Emma_Acid]

5 minutes ago, Will do said:

 

But can we agree at least, that the universe is made up of matter can't we? There probably are other things but we at least can agree that the material objects that exist within the universe are primarily what the universe is made up of can't we? 

At the moment our knowledge of what the universe really is and what all it's made of is highly limited so if what we know, that it's made of galaxies and other smaller material systems down to the atom, all having mass, why would it be illogical to apply the same law of physics that says there's always a center of mass for anything made of matter and apply it equally to the total mass that the universe is made of?

I don't think the laws of physics work one way for the things inside the universe and another way for the universe in its entirety. That doesn't make sense. 

Doesn't matter what you corner me into agreeing. The bottom line is that every part of the universe is moving away from every other part. It is not expanding from a single point.

I don't think it's hyperbole to say that if you prove this wrong you'd be in line for a Nobel prize.

Quote

Everything else is the same, and everything that's the same is inside the universe so why wouldn't it be true for the universe itself too? Why is something so basic being dismissed out of hand?

Because, and I'll say it again, we don't know what "inside the universe" means.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Emma_Acid

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Emma_Acid said:

Doesn't matter what you corner me into agreeing. The bottom line is that every part of the universe is moving away from every other part. It is not expanding from a single point.

I don't think it's hyperbole to say that if you prove this wrong you'd be in line for a Nobel prize.

 

I already explained this yesterday. Just because it looks like every part of the universe is moving away from every other part doesn't mean there isn't a center of mass to the universe.

While you stand still the blood in your body is moving in all directions but your body's center of mass remains stable where it is.

 

 

[Will Due]

9 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

Because, and I'll say it again, we don't know what "inside the universe" means.

 

Well Emma, if you don't mind me saying, most people do.

 

 

[Emma_Acid]

9 minutes ago, Will do said:

 

I already explained this yesterday. Just because it looks like every part of the universe is moving away from every other part doesn't mean there isn't a center of mass to the universe.

While you stand still the blood in your body is moving in all directions but your body's center of mass remains stable where it is.

You can fling out as many analogies as you want, it doesn't mean that is what the universe is like.

Quote

Well Emma, if you don't mind me saying, most people do.

Then "most people" would be in line for a Nobel prize in physics. (EDIT - or you know nothing about the subject. What do you think?)

Edited August 18, 2020 by Emma_Acid

[Will Due]

6 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

(EDIT - or you know nothing about the subject. What do you think?)

 

Now now Emma. You don't need to get snarky.

 

 

[Emma_Acid]

2 minutes ago, Will do said:

 

Now now Emma. You don't need to get snarky.

 

 

I can get as snarky as I want, thanks. Can you address the points or not?

Edited August 18, 2020 by Emma_Acid

[Will Due]

Just now, Emma_Acid said:

I an get as snarky as I want, thanks. Can you address the points or not?

 

I did. I thought they were my points lol.