Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cookie Monster

The Atheism Delusion

772 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
8 hours ago, pbarosso said:

the chain of logic is there. i guess youre not a vulcan.

Nobody has to be. Yours quoting the Parmenides philosophy. As old as it is, so are criticisms of it going back to Plato and Socrates. 

However, that's superfluous. The OP speaks of nothing, but physics doesn't. Physics defines what we consider nothing as very active. The terminology of nothing is only used to help understand the perspective.

So ironically, the pont is moot anyway. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
15 hours ago, pbarosso said:

fight fire with fire. ive had it with the atheist crowd. time to thin the herd a bit and get back to basics. the world was better when people had a purpose. now its all soft nihilism and no purpose.

Even if your purpose is to serve your master.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Nobody has to be. Yours quoting the Parmenides philosophy. As old as it is, so are criticisms of it going back to Plato and Socrates. 

However, that's superfluous. The OP speaks of nothing, but physics doesn't. Physics defines what we consider nothing as very active. The terminology of nothing is only used to help understand the perspective.

So ironically, the pont is moot anyway. 

I don't understand....physics doesn't speak of nothing....but ...physics defines nothing, as very active?  As one who is well read in the subject of physics...could you please present an example of 'physics' defining nothing as very active?

.i've read about ...particles popping in and out of existence...is that what your referring to?

'nothing' is one of my very favorite subjects... I often think of it .   :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area
4 hours ago, lightly said:

I don't understand....physics doesn't speak of nothing....but ...physics defines nothing, as very active?  As one who is well read in the subject of physics...could you please present an example of 'physics' defining nothing as very active?

.i've read about ...particles popping in and out of existence...is that what your referring to?

'nothing' is one of my very favorite subjects... I often think of it .   :lol:

Physics doesn’t speak of nothing because nothing is problematic.  If you could describe ‘nothing’ scientifically then it becomes something.  Likewise if nothing was a real thing, a void of absolutely nothing, unable to interact or have any influence on the universe, then essentially it doesn’t exist.  
 

That made sense when I wrote it, now I’m going to scrape the parts of my brain that have started leaking out of my ears.

There are some surprising revelations in theoretical physics when you delve into it.  For instance when describing the Mass of the singularity at the beginning of the universe as being infinite what that means is, it’s essentially unknowable.  There’s loads like that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Nobody has to be. Yours quoting the Parmenides philosophy. As old as it is, so are criticisms of it going back to Plato and Socrates. 

However, that's superfluous. The OP speaks of nothing, but physics doesn't. Physics defines what we consider nothing as very active. The terminology of nothing is only used to help understand the perspective.

So ironically, the pont is moot anyway. 

Great post.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
5 hours ago, lightly said:

I don't understand....physics doesn't speak of nothing....but ...physics defines nothing, as very active?  As one who is well read in the subject of physics...could you please present an example of 'physics' defining nothing as very active?

.i've read about ...particles popping in and out of existence...is that what your referring to?

'nothing' is one of my very favorite subjects... I often think of it .   :lol:

Quarks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 hours ago, lightly said:

I don't understand....physics doesn't speak of nothing....but ...physics defines nothing, as very active?  As one who is well read in the subject of physics...could you please present an example of 'physics' defining nothing as very active?

.i've read about ...particles popping in and out of existence...is that what your referring to?

'nothing' is one of my very favorite subjects... I often think of it .   :lol:

Nothing is not defined by physics. I do not think that is possible,

But a physicists definition of nothing, in my opinion, is as follows: No Space, no time, no matter. A complete an absolute break down of the laws of nature.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Quarks?

I don't know enough to answer definitively....but, I think I've read and heard about quarks 'popping' in and out of existence.?

     Which would make quarks 'something' ? ..at least part of the time.?   People have a very hard time with the concept of nothing.    I'm certain there is none.  ..never,  ever.  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Nothing is not defined by physics. I do not think that is possible,

But a physicists definition of nothing, in my opinion, is as follows: No Space, no time, no matter. A complete an absolute break down of the laws of nature.

.   .  .   infinitely less than even that . ?    :P         It's fascinating ! ...the idea of nothing.  Sometimes people will speak of the 'nothingness" of space....But...space is expanding !    Nothing does not expand,I'm fairly sure.    

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
15 minutes ago, lightly said:

I don't know enough to answer definitively....but, I think I've read and heard about quarks 'popping' in and out of existence.?

     Which would make quarks 'something' ? ..at least part of the time.?   People have a very hard time with the concept of nothing.    I'm certain there is none.  ..never,  ever.  

 

When I took Physics I tripped on quarks too, and you are spot on it is a hard concept to wrap your head around. 
 

Do you mediate or pray?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

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

you meditate don't you.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
11 hours ago, lightly said:

I don't understand....physics doesn't speak of nothing....but ...physics defines nothing, as very active?  As one who is well read in the subject of physics...could you please present an example of 'physics' defining nothing as very active?

.i've read about ...particles popping in and out of existence...is that what your referring to?

'nothing' is one of my very favorite subjects... I often think of it .   :lol:

Yes, your into it. Photons, virtual particles, energy, it's all there in nothing. Our definition of nothing is what we can't see. That's not accurate though.

Good read here.

http://m.nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/ingenious-lawrence-m-krauss

 

Are you familiar with the Hubble Ultra deep field photo? It took a photo of empty space. Essentially nothing. Upon close examination, we found five and a half thousand new galaxies in that nothing 

 

xlarge_web.jpg

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 

xlarge_web.jpg

 

 

Amazing picture. I got a better one though. That one shows what's on the outside. The one I got shows what's on the inside. I can pull it up for you if you'd like. No? Ok.

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
48 minutes ago, Will do said:

Amazing picture. I got a better one though. That one shows what's on the outside. The one I got shows what's on the inside. I can pull it up for you if you'd like. No? Ok.

Photo or picture Will?

I said photo. That's not what you're referring to is it?

So it's not better is it.

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Photo or picture Will?

I said photo. That's not what you're referring to is it?

So it's not better is it.

 

Yes it is.

But the other one ain't bad. It reminds me of how when you move out from the universe's center, you encounter less and less until eventually there's nothing.

But the distance beyond the border where there's nothing is a lot farther out than our telescopes can see at the moment. Hubble isn't powerful enough. Same thing goes for looking inward towards the center. Not powerful enough. But someday we will.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
15 minutes ago, Will do said:

Yes it is.

Then perhaps you should post it. I'm only familiar with the artists rendition you have posted of an incorrect and somewhat childish imaginative idea. I have not seen an actual photo. 

Where is this photo Will? Or is this another illustration of you choosing fantasy over reality? 

15 minutes ago, Will do said:

But the other one ain't bad. It reminds me of how when you move out from the universe's center, you encounter less and less until eventually there's nothing.

But the distance beyond the border where there's nothing is a lot farther out than our telescopes can see at the moment. Hubble isn't powerful enough. Same thing goes for looking inward towards the center. Not powerful enough. But someday we will.

The photo I posted shows nothing of the sort. I have no idea how you could come to such a wild conclusion based on what has been presented.

What you have done here is illustrate the self delusion you have advocated above. You have refused actual knowledge to believe some total garbage that the UB states.

Even though when the UB had been proven outright wrong on other occassions, you have pointed at the disclaimer which says the information in it might be wrong. Yet on this occassion everyone knows your wrong, and the UB nonsense you quote, yet you force yourself to ignore truths to support it 

That's why religion is toxic, and the UB perhaps even more so than garden variety religion.  It inspires you to reject observation for fables. If nothing else illustrated what utter garbage the UB is, that should. 

 

You know what I think Will? I thought no you're just stirring the pot. You're belief and the guidance of the UB doesn't seem to teach you how to play nice with others, or accept being wrong graciously. It's little wonder nobody else has respect for it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
23 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Then perhaps you should post it. I'm only familiar with the artists rendition you have posted of an incorrect and somewhat childish imaginative idea. I have not seen an actual photo. 

Where is this photo Will? Or is this another illustration of you choosing fantasy over reality? 

The photo I posted shows nothing of the sort. I have no idea how you could come to such a wild conclusion based on what has been presented.

What you have done here is illustrate the self delusion you have advocated above. You have refused actual knowledge to believe some total garbage that the UB states.

Even though when the UB had been proven outright wrong on other occassions, you have pointed at the disclaimer which says the information in it might be wrong. Yet on this occassion everyone knows your wrong, and the UB nonsense you quote, yet you force yourself to ignore truths to support it 

That's why religion is toxic, and the UB perhaps even more so than garden variety religion.  It inspires you to reject observation for fables. If nothing else illustrated what utter garbage the UB is, that should. 

 

You know what I think Will? I thought no you're just stirring the pot. You're belief and the guidance of the UB doesn't seem to teach you how to play nice with others, or accept being wrong graciously. It's little wonder nobody else has respect for it. 

 

Whatever.

But philosophically, it's entirely illogical to think the universe doesn't have a center when everything in it does. A center of mass.

How do you reconcile that? Be nice now.

 

 

Edited by Will do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
20 minutes ago, Will do said:

Whatever.

Whatever nothing. The HUDF is real and doesn't illustrate a centre.

20 minutes ago, Will do said:

But philosophically, it's entirely illogical to think the universe doesn't have a center when everything in it does. A center of mass.

How do you reconcile that? Be nice now.

Very easily. Motion. The universe is expanding, not whirling around a certain point. Considering that, a centre makes no sense philosophically. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Whatever nothing. The HUDF is real and doesn't illustrate a centre.

Very easily. Motion. The universe is expanding, not whirling around a certain point. Considering that, a centre makes no sense philosophically. 

 

But what about the center of mass?

Taken altogether, the universe has a center of mass doesn't it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 minutes ago, Will do said:

But what about the center of mass?

Taken altogether, the universe has a center of mass doesn't it?

If there was a centre of mass, then that's what everything would be revolving around. Not flying apart. We aren't all moving in the same direction. There is no uniform direction.  

Surely you would expect uniform direction from a centre of mass. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/universe-direction-planck-cosmos-cosmology-physics-spinning-stretching-a7331296.html%3famp

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
36 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If there was a centre of mass, then that's what everything would be revolving around. Not flying apart. We aren't all moving in the same direction. There is no uniform direction.  

Surely you would expect uniform direction from a centre of mass. 

 

Take a galloping horse for example. It has a center of mass. But not all of it's parts are moving in the same direction when it's galloping are they?

Evidence of a lack of uniform direction of the moving parts of the universe does not mean it doesn't have a center of mass. The center of its mass is the center of the universe. 

 

 

Edited by Will do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, Will do said:

Take a galloping horse for example. It has a center of mass. But not all of it's parts are moving in the same direction when it's galloping are they?

No, the centre of mass is changing in that instance, you're talking about a centre of gravity, that's what keeps the galloping horse stable.

Quote

Evidence of a lack of uniform direction of the moving parts of the universe does not mean it doesn't have a center of mass.

Yes it does. That's how spacetime works.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRG679rqBv1yOXdGR-nXUQ

Quote

The center of its mass is the center of the universe. 

Because the universe is expanding in all directions (not just one) and accelerating, there can't be a centre. Philosophically or otherwise. 

A centre draws all toward it, like a black hole. That's clearly not what's happening. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yes, your into it. Photons, virtual particles, energy, it's all there in nothing. Our definition of nothing is what we can't see. That's not accurate though.

Good read here.

http://m.nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/ingenious-lawrence-m-krauss

 

Are you familiar with the Hubble Ultra deep field photo? It took a photo of empty space. Essentially nothing. Upon close examination, we found five and a half thousand new galaxies in that nothing 

 

xlarge_web.jpg

Thanks psyche, I read the whole thing.   Your guy seems to be saying that there was truely Nothing before the Big Bang.? no matter...no spacetime, and that everything somehow occured completely spontaneously out of Nothing.   

But, haven't we always been taught that whatever the universe was ,and has become, was contained in what is called a singularity. ?   (Which to my thinking,would indicate a finite amount).  But ,anyway, everything that now exists...existed within this 'singularity'. There was Nothing outside the singularity... NOTHING.  Therefore, the universe is not expanding outwardly into NOTHING.

The universe is, observably, expanding at Every point ...which means...it is expanding WITHIN ITSELF.  There is still no need for an imaginary Nothing for the universe to expand into.  ?   I know that is a difficult concept...but less difficult than the concept of Nothing?

you stated^  "Photons, virtual particles, energy, it's all there in nothing."    I have to disagree that "it's all there in nothing"...I think it's all there in Space....and ,as I said earlier, Space is not Nothing...the proof is that Space is expanding....and Nothing cannot expand.  ?    Therefore I have to think that Nothing simply does not exist..never did and never will.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Do
17 minutes ago, lightly said:

Thanks psyche, I read the whole thing.   Your guy seems to be saying that there was truely Nothing before the Big Bang.? no matter...no spacetime, and that everything somehow occured completely spontaneously out of Nothing.   

But, haven't we always been taught that whatever the universe was ,and has become, was contained in what is called a singularity. ?   (Which to my thinking,would indicate a finite amount).  But ,anyway, everything that now exists...existed within this 'singularity'. There was Nothing outside the singularity... NOTHING.  Therefore, the universe is not expanding outwardly into NOTHING.

The universe is, observably, expanding at Every point ...which means...it is expanding WITHIN ITSELF.  There is still no need for an imaginary Nothing for the universe to expand into.  ?   I know that is a difficult concept...but less difficult than the concept of Nothing?

you stated^  "Photons, virtual particles, energy, it's all there in nothing."    I have to disagree that "it's all there in nothing"...I think it's all there in Space....and ,as I said earlier, Space is not Nothing...the proof is that Space is expanding....and Nothing cannot expand.  ?    Therefore I have to think that Nothing simply does not exist..never did and never will.

 

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

2. The Hebrew translation of the first line of the Bible does not say in the beginning God created everything. That is a miss-translation leaving out a carefully placed - used to indicate interdependence rather than cause and effect. So God didnt exist and then create the universe. God along with space, time, and matter, came into existence at the same time as they are interdependent on each other.

3. If we think about it things cannot partially exist, they either exist or they dont. If we divide something up repeatedly we eventually find building blocks or quantities which cannot be divided any further. Those are the fundamental quantities which exist or dont. There is no partial existence of them. This reveals a fourth structuring principle for that universe in that a thing is made out of a precise quantity. So God is one thing, one quantity. Quantification infuses space, time, and matter too, as things cannot partially exist. They either do or they dont.

4. So we have a God which through interdependence has its existence supported by a quantified space, time, and matter. Space consists of two components which both have an interdependence with God. That is the location that God exists at, and the only way to have a location is if its relative to everywhere else where God isn`t at. Time consists of four components. To have a God existing at a present moment in time, a present moment can only exist if there was a before and after. And continued existence of the one thing creates a flow of time in one direction. Something similar with matter too. To be made from something also requires the existence of matter the one thing is not made from.

5. Quantified and relative space, time, and matter, also need to tie up their own existence through interdependence. That requires populating the universe with matter across the present in time, backwards in time in a way which its existence is tied up nice and water tight with a Big Bang, and forwards in time to what is presumably a big crunch (if the physicists are right).

6. We are left with a universe which was created `in motion` rather than at the point of the Big Bang. Its existence is tied up going back in time to the point of the Big Bang, but it didnt start there. It started with God causing the universe to exist though interdependence. I`m going to put my head on the chopping block and say that occurred 5500 years ago, because that is the point at which civilization started. The universe in the past before then is building up to the point of civilization or to view it correctly the interdependence reduces the universe before that point until it eventually reaches the point it is all tied up water tight with the Big Bang.

7. The one thing has final form of interdependence needed to support its existence. It has to backwards create where the entity came from. That populates the universe backwards in time with life. Life which reduces as we look further into the past until we eventually reach the Big Bang. Hence evolution is not the progression of lower life to higher life. Its is the backwards creation through interdependence where the one thing as an entity is reduced down to a point it ties up nice and water tight at the point of the Big Bang.

So I reason God is a physical being on planet Earth that has through interdependence created the universe and all of us. He might not realise he is God but he is here somewhere. I say he, it might not even be a human or life as we know it. It could also be hidden from us if we consider extra dimensions too.

CookieMonster hey,  I'm going to quote on the 7 paragraphs one at a time. I've read them . There's a lot in there to touch on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.