The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

[mokoman]

Nope, the infinite explantion doesn't work.

Imagine a calendar stretching back in time forever. Time moves through the calendar one day at a time (it’s more precise to say one event at a time, but days will suffice for our discussion). If the universe had existed forever, then there would have been an infinite number of days before today. But how could time have reached this present moment if it had to traverse an infinite number of previous days to get here?

If there were an infinite number of days before today, then there would always be “one more day” in history for time to move through, and today could never happen.

Here’s another example that illustrates this concept. Let’s say your Uncle Bill owns a flower shop. Each day Bill counts all his flowers, and only after he counts each one will he open his flower shop for business. Now, if Bill has only a dozen flowers to count, he will open up the shop pretty quickly. But if he has a million or a billion flowers to count, then it will take him much longer before he can open the shop.

But even if he has a trillion flowers to count, eventually enough time will pass and the shop will open after Bill finished counting them (that is, if Bill has enough coffee to keep him awake). But imagine that Bill has an infinite number of flowers he needs to count. Remember, he still has to count all of them before he can open the shop. How long will it take before he’s able to open the shop?

Well, because there would always be at least one more flower to count, Bill could never finish her task. This means that the shop could never open. But if you went to the shop and saw an “OPEN” sign on the door, then that would tell you that Uncle Bill did not have an infinite number of flowers to count. The fact that today is happening is like the flower shop’s being open. Neither could happen if an infinite number of days (or flowers being counted) had to occur first.

Therefore, the past is not infinite, and the universe had a beginning. Even the skeptic David Hume admitted this: “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit it.”

But maybe infinity is something we don’t really understand, so that is why the infinite flower shop doesn’t make sense. Fortunately, modern set theory developed by the mathematician Georg Cantor allows us to do mathematical operations with infinite quantities; but it does not show us how these infinite quantities could exist in the real world. According to mathematicians Edward Kasner and James Newman,

“the infinite certainly does not exist in the same sense that we say, ‘There are fish in the sea.’ . . . ‘Existence’ in the mathematical sense is wholly different from the existence of objects in th physical world.”



Because it was caused to exist by something. Everything that came to exist has to have an explanation, and there is no plausible one except God.



I don't think you really understand what heat death is.

I'm sure you're aware of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy always tend toward disorder (or what scientists call entropy). The second law explains why striking billiard balls with a pool cue never results in the balls rearranging themselves into the standard rack formation. Such behavior would violate the universe’s tendency to always move toward disorder and decay.

You especially see the second law of thermodynamics at work in heat reactions. For example, have you ever taken dinner out of the oven, gotten ready to take that first delicious bite, but then get interrupted by a phone call? After the call, you sit down to eat, only to find that your dinner is cold.

Why does your dinner get cold over time? Why doesn’t it stay warm, or get warmer? According to the second law, all systems move toward disorder and as a result, everything, including heat and energy, moves toward equilibrium. This tendency causes your hot dinner to get cold and the room to get a tiny bit warmer until the two objects are at the same temperature. The second law also applies to the universe as a whole.

Eventually, all the stars will burn out or explode until there is a thin mist of atoms spread throughout the universe at absolute zero, the coldest temperature anything can be. Scientists have a name for this future condition: heat death. There can be no contraction or explosion possible after this, unlike the Big Bang which happened due to a very particular set of conditions and environment.

While some physicists claim that the total amount of entropy in our universe may be larger than originally thought, they generally agree the observable universe is not at maximum entropy. If it were, it would be highly unlikely that you could even be reading this, since entropy increases with all of the biological processes associated with activities like reading. Indeed, because conscious life requires entropy, this means, in the words of physicists Lawrence Krauss and Glenn Starkmann, “[L]ife cannot endure forever.”

But if the universe has existed forever, why haven’t the stars in the universe already burned out? Why hasn’t heat death already happened?

Think of a flashlight. If you see a flashlight that is dead, it could have been sitting there for all eternity. But if the flashlight is shining, then you know it could not have been shining forever, because the batteries would have run out a long time ago.

Likewise, think of the whole universe as having energy and “shining” like the flashlight. If the universe had existed for all eternity, then all of the energy in the universe, like the energy in stars or planets, would have been used up and the universe would be like a dead flashlight—cold, dark, and lifeless. If God does not intervene, then heat death will happen billions of years from now. But if the universe were eternal, heat death should have already occurred.

According to the physicist P.C.W. Davies, “[T]he universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist.”

Maybe there is an unknown exception to the second law of thermodynamics that allows for an increase in order and energy even though the universe is eternal? This is very unlikely, because the second law of thermodynamics is one of the best attested laws in physics. Sir Arthur Eddington, an early twentieth-century physicist, wrote:

"If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."



Except there aren't. According to the second law of thermodynamics all physical systems move toward disorder and decay. If the universe had been eternal, everything in the universe (including biological life and objects like the sun) would have run out of energy a long time ago. But there still is energy, so the universe must be of finite age.

The evidence from science seems to suggest that all matter and energy originated from a single point about 13 billion years ago called the Big Bang.

The past can’t be eternal, even if there was another universe that existed before the Big Bang. For example, if there were an infinite number of days before today, then time could never reach the present moment. But since today did happen, this shows that time must be finite and so the universe had a beginning.

Even if infinite universes did exist, they would still need a cause, and there can't be an infinite regress of causes.



How? Why? By design or just by chance?



How is this the only one where we can exist? How was it fine-tuned through impossible odds to make life possible and by whom?



Could have suggests it's your guess, doesn't count for much.



Yeah, because time and space started with the Big Bang. Before that, the physical quantities and constants didn't exist. Your multiverse infinite universes cannot stand scrutiny for the same reason.

The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those infinite Big bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis.

The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained—eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.



I addressed this before, let's do it again.

The cosmological argument never says that everything requires a cause. It only claims that everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence. Since we have good reasons to believe that the universe began to exist (Big Bang cosmology, impossibility of infinite days before today, lack of maximum entropy), then the universe requires an explanation for why it exists.

God, on the other hand, never began to exist because he is eternal (he created time itself), and therefore God requires no cause for his existence. He has always existed; but the universe has not always existed.

It cannot be disputed that the universe began to exist. And whatever begins to exist has to have a cause or a creator.



You haven't provided a plausible and scientific alternative otherwise. God designing the Universe and humans is the most believable explanation.

Also, under your atheistic worldview, it really seems impossible to herald anything as good or bad. What gives you the right to stop someone from raping or murdering or cheating others? We are all just insignificant bags of atoms stuck in an infinite loop with no greater good or moral standard. Just a bag of chemicals stuck in a loop that will eventually destruct, so it doesn't matter what someone does to another in this life. Whatever happens just happens and has been happening since time immemorial.

this isnt something i come up with , universe with cyclic loop is just one of the theories.

If there were an infinite number of days before today, then there would always be “one more day” in history for time to move through, and today could never happen.

because an infinite amount of time has passed and now we are here .

easier to believe that than a god .

How? Why? By design or just by chance?

because if there were infinite universes before and after , at some point u will reach one where life is possible , there is no design or luck .

I don't think you really understand what heat death is.

i think i do tho , head death comes then contraction , then another big bang. then another universe.
i think ur talking about steady state theory - 'universe has always existed like it has today"

god creating universe isnt even a good explanation , its just shifting the problem to a magical being that has always existed .

We are all just insignificant bags of atoms stuck in an infinite loop with no greater good or moral standard.

yep exactly ,we nothing but star dust. :>

----------------------

It cannot be disputed that the universe began to exist.

i think @asaffronladoftherisingsun will agree with me on this , big bang wasn't time of creation , was it ?

 

[Two Minutes To Midnight]

Debunk atheism?

Indeed, especially the new-age Fedora-tipping Internet atheists.

 

[Asmaka Mahajanapada]

Nope, the infinite explantion doesn't work.

Imagine a calendar stretching back in time forever. Time moves through the calendar one day at a time (it’s more precise to say one event at a time, but days will suffice for our discussion). If the universe had existed forever, then there would have been an infinite number of days before today. But how could time have reached this present moment if it had to traverse an infinite number of previous days to get here?

If there were an infinite number of days before today, then there would always be “one more day” in history for time to move through, and today could never happen.

Here’s another example that illustrates this concept. Let’s say your Uncle Bill owns a flower shop. Each day Bill counts all his flowers, and only after he counts each one will he open his flower shop for business. Now, if Bill has only a dozen flowers to count, he will open up the shop pretty quickly. But if he has a million or a billion flowers to count, then it will take him much longer before he can open the shop.

But even if he has a trillion flowers to count, eventually enough time will pass and the shop will open after Bill finished counting them (that is, if Bill has enough coffee to keep him awake). But imagine that Bill has an infinite number of flowers he needs to count. Remember, he still has to count all of them before he can open the shop. How long will it take before he’s able to open the shop?

Well, because there would always be at least one more flower to count, Bill could never finish her task. This means that the shop could never open. But if you went to the shop and saw an “OPEN” sign on the door, then that would tell you that Uncle Bill did not have an infinite number of flowers to count. The fact that today is happening is like the flower shop’s being open. Neither could happen if an infinite number of days (or flowers being counted) had to occur first.

Therefore, the past is not infinite, and the universe had a beginning. Even the skeptic David Hume admitted this: “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit it.”

But maybe infinity is something we don’t really understand, so that is why the infinite flower shop doesn’t make sense. Fortunately, modern set theory developed by the mathematician Georg Cantor allows us to do mathematical operations with infinite quantities; but it does not show us how these infinite quantities could exist in the real world. According to mathematicians Edward Kasner and James Newman,

“the infinite certainly does not exist in the same sense that we say, ‘There are fish in the sea.’ . . . ‘Existence’ in the mathematical sense is wholly different from the existence of objects in th physical world.”



Because it was caused to exist by something. Everything that came to exist has to have an explanation, and there is no plausible one except God.



I don't think you really understand what heat death is.

I'm sure you're aware of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy always tend toward disorder (or what scientists call entropy). The second law explains why striking billiard balls with a pool cue never results in the balls rearranging themselves into the standard rack formation. Such behavior would violate the universe’s tendency to always move toward disorder and decay.

You especially see the second law of thermodynamics at work in heat reactions. For example, have you ever taken dinner out of the oven, gotten ready to take that first delicious bite, but then get interrupted by a phone call? After the call, you sit down to eat, only to find that your dinner is cold.

Why does your dinner get cold over time? Why doesn’t it stay warm, or get warmer? According to the second law, all systems move toward disorder and as a result, everything, including heat and energy, moves toward equilibrium. This tendency causes your hot dinner to get cold and the room to get a tiny bit warmer until the two objects are at the same temperature. The second law also applies to the universe as a whole.

Eventually, all the stars will burn out or explode until there is a thin mist of atoms spread throughout the universe at absolute zero, the coldest temperature anything can be. Scientists have a name for this future condition: heat death. There can be no contraction or explosion possible after this, unlike the Big Bang which happened due to a very particular set of conditions and environment.

While some physicists claim that the total amount of entropy in our universe may be larger than originally thought, they generally agree the observable universe is not at maximum entropy. If it were, it would be highly unlikely that you could even be reading this, since entropy increases with all of the biological processes associated with activities like reading. Indeed, because conscious life requires entropy, this means, in the words of physicists Lawrence Krauss and Glenn Starkmann, “[L]ife cannot endure forever.”

But if the universe has existed forever, why haven’t the stars in the universe already burned out? Why hasn’t heat death already happened?

Think of a flashlight. If you see a flashlight that is dead, it could have been sitting there for all eternity. But if the flashlight is shining, then you know it could not have been shining forever, because the batteries would have run out a long time ago.

Likewise, think of the whole universe as having energy and “shining” like the flashlight. If the universe had existed for all eternity, then all of the energy in the universe, like the energy in stars or planets, would have been used up and the universe would be like a dead flashlight—cold, dark, and lifeless. If God does not intervene, then heat death will happen billions of years from now. But if the universe were eternal, heat death should have already occurred.

According to the physicist P.C.W. Davies, “[T]he universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist.”

Maybe there is an unknown exception to the second law of thermodynamics that allows for an increase in order and energy even though the universe is eternal? This is very unlikely, because the second law of thermodynamics is one of the best attested laws in physics. Sir Arthur Eddington, an early twentieth-century physicist, wrote:

"If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."



Except there aren't. According to the second law of thermodynamics all physical systems move toward disorder and decay. If the universe had been eternal, everything in the universe (including biological life and objects like the sun) would have run out of energy a long time ago. But there still is energy, so the universe must be of finite age.

The evidence from science seems to suggest that all matter and energy originated from a single point about 13 billion years ago called the Big Bang.

The past can’t be eternal, even if there was another universe that existed before the Big Bang. For example, if there were an infinite number of days before today, then time could never reach the present moment. But since today did happen, this shows that time must be finite and so the universe had a beginning.

Even if infinite universes did exist, they would still need a cause, and there can't be an infinite regress of causes.



How? Why? By design or just by chance?



How is this the only one where we can exist? How was it fine-tuned through impossible odds to make life possible and by whom?



Could have suggests it's your guess, doesn't count for much.



Yeah, because time and space started with the Big Bang. Before that, the physical quantities and constants didn't exist. Your multiverse infinite universes cannot stand scrutiny for the same reason.

The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those infinite Big bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis.

The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained—eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.



I addressed this before, let's do it again.

The cosmological argument never says that everything requires a cause. It only claims that everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence. Since we have good reasons to believe that the universe began to exist (Big Bang cosmology, impossibility of infinite days before today, lack of maximum entropy), then the universe requires an explanation for why it exists.

God, on the other hand, never began to exist because he is eternal (he created time itself), and therefore God requires no cause for his existence. He has always existed; but the universe has not always existed.

It cannot be disputed that the universe began to exist. And whatever begins to exist has to have a cause or a creator.



You haven't provided a plausible and scientific alternative otherwise. God designing the Universe and humans is the most believable explanation.

Also, under your atheistic worldview, it really seems impossible to herald anything as good or bad. What gives you the right to stop someone from raping or murdering or cheating others? We are all just insignificant bags of atoms stuck in an infinite loop with no greater good or moral standard. Just a bag of chemicals stuck in a loop that will eventually destruct, so it doesn't matter what someone does to another in this life. Whatever happens just happens and has been happening since time immemorial.

After reading your post, it sounds like one could argue either universe is eternal or else it's the creator of universe which is eternal. But, both views can agree on that some entity is eternal or in other words eternity is a possibility. Beyond that, it may be out of scope for Human comprehension.

 

[Two Minutes To Midnight]

this isnt something i come up with , universe with cyclic loop is just one of the theories.

The theory for which not only is there no scientific evidence, but actually observations against it? In a cyclic universe we’d expect expansion to be slowing down. But we don’t observe that. We observe expansion speeding up. We have no indication that there is anything that would cause expansion to stop and reverse.

It is telling that you would accept fanciful, unproven theories rather than a rational explanation of intelligent design. This is, in fact, your Science of the Gaps fallacy.

because an infinite amount of time has passed and now we are here .

Is that what infinite means? Infinite literally means a space or quantity that is limitless or endless, impossible to measure or calculate. It is greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.

When you say, "An infinite amount of time has passed and now we are here", you are making a completely bogus statement, because in an infinite period, you can't even fix or point out a particular point of time, because it has literally infinite!!

If we are here, then an "infinite" amount of time has certainly not passed, because in an infinite period of time, there would be always be one more day before we get here. If we got here, then the Universe started existing. And that number is finite. When you say, time has passed and now we are here, how long has it taken for us to be here? If you can assign a number to it, it is not "infinite". And the Big Bang theory proves it.

Although, we don't even need this, because the phrase "infinite amount of time" is absolutely incorrect and false. Time cannot be infinite.

because if there were infinite universes before and after

Again, "if", your hypothesis is just conjecture. And again the use of the word "infinite" here is a complete bastardization. The constants and quantities like time are finite which were created and began to exist after the Big Bang. If there are infinite universes, there would always be one more universe before this, and we would never reach this point.

And all those infinite universes would still need a cause to exist, which you still haven't answered.

at some point u will reach one where life is possible

What do you mean by "at some point?" At one moment, there are infinite number of universes, and then you are saying "at one point". Make up your mind.

And how did we reach one where life is possible? How was life made possible in this universe? How was it fine-tuned and whom? Why was there no formation of life any other time? How was life made possible and how was the universe designed for it to be made so?

there is no design or luck .

Yup, according to you, there is just random luck and chance. Which is the most unscientific thing in my life.

head death comes then contraction , then another big bang. then another universe.

Where did you get that from? First off, you said that the universe was not created but always existed. So, if the universe is eternal, why hasn't heat death happened already, it should have occurred by now.

Secondly, after heat death, there is no more multiple "Big Bangs and universes". The “heat death” of the universe is just a fancy name for a universe in a state of maximum entropy.

In a universe of maximum entropy, there are no energy sources. There are no differences in potential energy. There is no fuel. There are no systems of stars or planets where celestial objects move and can do useful work. There are (obviously) no stars, no light, no radiation. In fact, there are no processes of any kind whatsoever; because if there were, they’d be contributing to an increase in entropy, hence the universe would not yet be in a state of maximum entropy.

This state of the universe would be achieved, e.g., by most matter ultimately collapsing into black holes, which then re-emit all that mass-energy in the form of Hawking radiation (heat). This radiation is dispersed, and its wavelength is redshifted by expansion, ultimately leaving nothing.

The hypothetical process of proton decay, if it happens (the jury is still out) may also play a role, as over such unimaginably long timescales, it means that even atoms evaporate. So matter that escaped a fate in black holes would still end up, ultimately, as radiation.

In the end, you are left with what is essentially an empty universe. If it is true that the expansion is accelerating, it would be a universe with negative spatial curvature, still expanding forever, but containing nothing.

So, there is no more "universe creation" after that. You haven't even responded to the fact that multiple universes being formed would require overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen.

Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.

i think ur talking about steady state theory - 'universe has always existed like it has today

"

No, you're not even listening. You're the one espousing the steady state theory, I never even said that the universe has ALWAYS existed, it was caused to exist by God, you are the one who said that the Universe has always existed. According to you, the universe existed eternally and has never rapidly expanded or changed.

Something which was debunked by the Big Bang theory, and Fred Hoyle himself accepted that the steady state theory is wrong.

god creating universe isnt even a good explanation , its just shifting the problem to a magical being that has always existed .

The cosmological argument doesn't say everything requires a cause, only everything that began to exist needs a cause. God has always existed, he created time itself, so he doesn't need any cause.

Understand that there can’t be an infinite regression of causes, the first cause must be uncaused. If something caused God to exist, then the cosmological argument starts all over again and that cause will turn out to be the true God.

If the cause of the universe is uncaused and created time and space, then it could not be affected by those things and would thus be timeless and immaterial. But when things in our universe go out of existence, it’s usually because their parts are dissolved over time. Since God is not in time, and he does not have any physical parts, there doesn’t seem to be a way for him to go out of existence.

yep exactly ,we nothing but star dust.

Exactly, and I believe that that view is morally reprehensible and abhorrent, which is why I can never believe in atheism.

Honestly, if you believe that, why are posting and reading all this? Why do you care what one bag of star dust is posting on something created by other bags of star dust? Why do you get angry or furious when China or Pakistan kill our troops or try to take our land? It's all some bags of star dust fighting against another group of star dust, what do you care? By what basis do you oppose rape or murder? It's just star dust and chemicals doing things to other star dust and chemicals, what business is it of yours?

i think @asaffronladoftherisingsun will agree with me on this , big bang wasn't time of creation , was it ?

So, if you don't believe in the Big Bang, you should first of all, declare that from the start, and secondly not claim that your position is scientific and religions are unscientific, because you just rejected one of the most compelling model of the Universe which has been proved with empirical evidence and observations.

Still haven't seen any response to the fine-tuning argument.

 

[mokoman]

The theory for which not only is there no scientific evidence, but actually observations against it? In a cyclic universe we’d expect expansion to be slowing down. But we don’t observe that. We observe expansion speeding up. We have no indication that there is anything that would cause expansion to stop and reverse.

It is telling that you would accept fanciful, unproven theories rather than a rational explanation of intelligent design. This is, in fact, your Science of the Gaps fallacy.



Is that what infinite means? Infinite literally means a space or quantity that is limitless or endless, impossible to measure or calculate. It is greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.

When you say, "An infinite amount of time has passed and now we are here", you are making a completely bogus statement, because in an infinite period, you can't even fix or point out a particular point of time, because it has literally infinite!!

If we are here, then an "infinite" amount of time has certainly not passed, because in an infinite period of time, there would be always be one more day before we get here. If we got here, then the Universe started existing. And that number is finite. When you say, time has passed and now we are here, how long has it taken for us to be here? If you can assign a number to it, it is not "infinite". And the Big Bang theory proves it.

Although, we don't even need this, because the phrase "infinite amount of time" is absolutely incorrect and false. Time cannot be infinite.



Again, "if", your hypothesis is just conjecture. And again the use of the word "infinite" here is a complete bastardization. The constants and quantities like time are finite which were created and began to exist after the Big Bang. If there are infinite universes, there would always be one more universe before this, and we would never reach this point.

And all those infinite universes would still need a cause to exist, which you still haven't answered.



What do you mean by "at some point?" At one moment, there are infinite number of universes, and then you are saying "at one point". Make up your mind.

And how did we reach one where life is possible? How was life made possible in this universe? How was it fine-tuned and whom? Why was there no formation of life any other time? How was life made possible and how was the universe designed for it to be made so?



Yup, according to you, there is just random luck and chance. Which is the most unscientific thing in my life.



Where did you get that from? First off, you said that the universe was not created but always existed. So, if the universe is eternal, why hasn't heat death happened already, it should have occurred by now.

Secondly, after heat death, there is no more multiple "Big Bangs and universes". The “heat death” of the universe is just a fancy name for a universe in a state of maximum entropy.

In a universe of maximum entropy, there are no energy sources. There are no differences in potential energy. There is no fuel. There are no systems of stars or planets where celestial objects move and can do useful work. There are (obviously) no stars, no light, no radiation. In fact, there are no processes of any kind whatsoever; because if there were, they’d be contributing to an increase in entropy, hence the universe would not yet be in a state of maximum entropy.

This state of the universe would be achieved, e.g., by most matter ultimately collapsing into black holes, which then re-emit all that mass-energy in the form of Hawking radiation (heat). This radiation is dispersed, and its wavelength is redshifted by expansion, ultimately leaving nothing.

The hypothetical process of proton decay, if it happens (the jury is still out) may also play a role, as over such unimaginably long timescales, it means that even atoms evaporate. So matter that escaped a fate in black holes would still end up, ultimately, as radiation.

In the end, you are left with what is essentially an empty universe. If it is true that the expansion is accelerating, it would be a universe with negative spatial curvature, still expanding forever, but containing nothing.

So, there is no more "universe creation" after that. You haven't even responded to the fact that multiple universes being formed would require overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen.

Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.

"

No, you're not even listening. You're the one espousing the steady state theory, I never even said that the universe has ALWAYS existed, it was caused to exist by God, you are the one who said that the Universe has always existed. According to you, the universe existed eternally and has never rapidly expanded or changed.

Something which was debunked by the Big Bang theory, and Fred Hoyle himself accepted that the steady state theory is wrong.



The cosmological argument doesn't say everything requires a cause, only everything that began to exist needs a cause. God has always existed, he created time itself, so he doesn't need any cause.

Understand that there can’t be an infinite regression of causes, the first cause must be uncaused. If something caused God to exist, then the cosmological argument starts all over again and that cause will turn out to be the true God.

If the cause of the universe is uncaused and created time and space, then it could not be affected by those things and would thus be timeless and immaterial. But when things in our universe go out of existence, it’s usually because their parts are dissolved over time. Since God is not in time, and he does not have any physical parts, there doesn’t seem to be a way for him to go out of existence.



Exactly, and I believe that that view is morally reprehensible and abhorrent, which is why I can never believe in atheism.

Honestly, if you believe that, why are posting and reading all this? Why do you care what one bag of star dust is posting on something created by other bags of star dust? Why do you get angry or furious when China or Pakistan kill our troops or try to take our land? It's all some bags of star dust fighting against another group of star dust, what do you care? By what basis do you oppose rape or murder? It's just star dust and chemicals doing things to other star dust and chemicals, what business is it of yours?



So, if you don't believe in the Big Bang, you should first of all, declare that from the start, and secondly not claim that your position is scientific and religions are unscientific, because you just rejected one of the most compelling model of the Universe which has been proved with empirical evidence and observations.

Still haven't seen any response to the fine-tuning argument.

i was talking about this

Cyclic model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

leave it , we will both waste our time . not like we will ever know truth about these things anyway.

By what basis do you oppose rape or murder?

who said i opposed it

Spoiler

 

[Two Minutes To Midnight]

i was talking about this

Cyclic model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, and it is completely unproven with not a sliver of evidence to support it. It is much more ridiculous to believe in this than God, who is the best possible explanation after we consider the different features of our life.

leave it , we will both waste our time . not like we will ever know truth about these things anyway.

Well, I know it already, you simply don't want to accept it, which is a completely different discussion.

Still, nice to have this debate, I hope we both have learned things from each other.

By what basis do you oppose rape or murder?

who said i opposed it

Spoiler

View attachment 161831

Nice jest, but I think you do realize the conundrum you're in. According to my belief, I have a valid basis for opposing evil, but according to your worldview, you have no basis for opposing anything morally wrong.

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

this isnt something i come up with , universe with cyclic loop is just one of the theories.

If there were an infinite number of days before today, then there would always be “one more day” in history for time to move through, and today could never happen.

because an infinite amount of time has passed and now we are here .

easier to believe that than a god .

How? Why? By design or just by chance?

because if there were infinite universes before and after , at some point u will reach one where life is possible , there is no design or luck .

I don't think you really understand what heat death is.

i think i do tho , head death comes then contraction , then another big bang. then another universe.
i think ur talking about steady state theory - 'universe has always existed like it has today"

god creating universe isnt even a good explanation , its just shifting the problem to a magical being that has always existed .

We are all just insignificant bags of atoms stuck in an infinite loop with no greater good or moral standard.

yep exactly ,we nothing but star dust. :>

----------------------

It cannot be disputed that the universe began to exist.

i think @asaffronladoftherisingsun will agree with me on this , big bang wasn't time of creation , was it ?

A big bang beginning for the cosmos is not necessarily a beginning of time it is compatible with an oscillatory cosmos as in DHARMA a cosmos which was created trillions of years ago but goes through a series of big bangs and big crunches. So the time is also cyclic in this regards.
Therefore...
Universe being eternal is one of many Vedic Santani doctrines I mean there are many Rishis who have commented on this. Atman Universe and ISHVARA are three eternal beings. Ishvara is efficient cause of the universe the material cause is Prakriti the premordial elementary matter.

 

[Tactical Doge]

Yes, and it is completely unproven with not a sliver of evidence to support it. It is much more ridiculous to believe in this than God, who is the best possible explanation after we consider the different features of our life.



Well, I know it already, you simply don't want to accept it, which is a completely different discussion.

Still, nice to have this debate, I hope we both have learned things from each other.



Nice jest, but I think you do realize the conundrum you're in. According to my belief, I have a valid basis for opposing evil, but according to your worldview, you have no basis for opposing anything morally wrong.

Are we alone in this Universe?
If not why are Humans so special among So many beings, terrestrial or extra terrestrial
Is our belief systems closer to truth
Or did any extra terrestrial civilization find out the exact same truth


About God I mean
You see Science is Science because Fundamental Laws remain the same wherever we go in the universe, well, almost wherever we go

Can we say the same about fundamentals of religious scriptures?Not any religion specifically though,

Can we say the same about how one identifies the supreme or divine?

Would love to hear your views on this

 

[tribendra bisoi.]

I hope you people understand non of it matter . We ll never know .. We are just bacteria on dust particle . We are limited by our capacity . People in past made different kind of Gods , And the nature of God was according to the social conditions of those time .. Some of them were quiet insecure and had provision of heaven / hell for us lesser mortals ..

People need something to hang on ..

May be if organized religions of past which have lost relevance in this age dies in course of time . People ll find some other kind of God / spirituality suitable to the contemporary age .

 

[HeinzGud]

Really? Are you sure about this?

So on what basis do you appeal to immaterial universal laws like laws of logic or laws of mathematics? Laws such as those two are immaterial, universal, invariant, unchanging etc. They certainly are way beyond the three dimensional plane that we are in. So, according to you it's all bogus and we cannot understand it, and our present interpretation of it is all wrong?

What about objective moral truths? Like, “It is wrong to cause suffering simply to increase suffering in the world” cannot be proven scientifically. These statements are also not true by definition like the statement “All triangles have three sides.”

They are objective truths, but immaterial, universal and unchanging. Again not within the boundaries of this three-dimensional world. So, now that is false as well? Beyond our understanding?

Yes. I am sure about it. Our brains are made in a three dimensional plane. How can it perceive other dimensions?

The laws of mathematics, reason etc., are all stuck with us in a same universe. How can they move beyond it?

Where we live is where we are.

What are those objective truths?

 

[HeinzGud]

And who decides karma ?
Karma deva ?

There's no Karma.. so no Karma Deva

 

[Tactical Doge]

There's no Karma.. so no Karma Deva

Krma Deva is not a thing, my friend Maharaj was Being Sarcastic



@shade
Lagta hai aapka 40 IQ Lankajeet waaps aa gya

 

[ezsasa]

all the gyan comes pouring out only when someone else is at receiving end of the existential threat thousands of kilometres away.

greater fools are those who continue to give gyan when the threat is staring back at them right infront of their face.
=======
"If I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I'd choose Christianity every single time."

Self-proclaimed 'cultural Christian', @RichardDawkins, tells @RachelSJohnson he's 'slightly horrified' to hear Ramadan lights were hung on Oxford Street rather than Easter lights.

 

[Blood+]

all the gyan comes pouring out only when someone else is at receiving end of the existential threat thousands of kilometres away.

greater fools are those who continue to give gyan when the threat is staring back at them right infront of their face.
=======
"If I had to choose between Christianity and Islam, I'd choose Christianity every single time."

Self-proclaimed 'cultural Christian', @RichardDawkins, tells @RachelSJohnson he's 'slightly horrified' to hear Ramadan lights were hung on Oxford Street rather than Easter lights.

Dude, Dawkins openly speaks out against islam all the freaking time!! He's never pulled his punches when it comes to religions.
And what he said is only logical - if you must choose between two evils, you always pick the lesser one!!

 

[ezsasa]

Dude, Dawkins openly speaks out against islam all the freaking time!! He's never pulled his punches when it comes to religions.
And what he said is only logical - if you must choose between two evils, you always pick the lesser one!!

not on islam anymore, now a days he doesn't want to talk about it with same "vigour" as before.

 

[Blood+]

not on islam anymore, now a days he doesn't want to talk about it with same "vigour" as before.

He has melowed down overall somewhat, it's not just restricted to islam only.

 

[tommy]

He has melowed down overall somewhat, it's not just restricted to islam only.

Any particular reason for this? Or is it just due to age?

 

[ezsasa]

He has melowed down overall somewhat, it's not just restricted to islam only.

that interview was from march, and the tweet below is from june of last year. false equivalence is to be noted.

point being, there is a growing recognition in Indian discourse that even if some one calls oneself as athiest, their individual opinions on atheism evolve from their own religious moorings, simply because all religions are not the same.

we had many examples on social media in past five years, where theological underpinning of an individual's atheism were so evident.
=====
Modi’s BJP is a tragic affront to India’s secular beginnings. Hinduism is at least as ridiculous as Islam. Between them, these two idiotic religions have betrayed the ideals of Nehru and Gandhi.

 

[Blood+]

Any particular reason for this? Or is it just due to age?

Mostly age, I think.