Happy Atheist Forum

Hey all, I’m a scientific atheist and this website kind of rubs my beliefs the wrong way. Does this make sense to you? The Big Bang Theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the impossibility of an infinite past all support the universe having a beginning.

http://powertochange.com/questions/qna7.html (http://powertochange.com/questions/qna7.html)

I think part of the reason it seems to rub the wrong way is that it's spefically meantioning scientific proofs from an obviously biased viewpoint in order to pull those 'scientists' toward it's hopeful conclusion of conversion to christianity. I myself like scientific proof though I am no scientist and much of the laws and such I have yet to decipher, especially to see if this website is bending them or not...
'Sophia'  :doubt:

Basically what the site is doing is misrepresenting the BB as being understood as a beginning where nothing existed before it...the idea behind the BB is that we can trace back the universe to what scientists call a singularity.  Nothing about the BB theory states that there was or had to be nothing before this singularity.

As for the universe dying out, scientists are still looking into dark matter and if there is enough to counteract the expanding universe eventually...it still isn't beyond possibility for a big crunch to occur but that's not necessarily a popular theory right now.  String theory theoretically allows for there being a multiverse rather than just our universe and something having to do with branes crossing and creating this and other universes...from what I understand it also allows for this to be an infinite process.

The whole idea of infinity being possible is based on mathematics where if you divide infinity you get infinity...from my understanding it is a theoretical math that is useful for doing certain types of equations but I don't think it would be right to say that it is necessarily what would really be the case if we knew infinite 'time' existed.  Also theists don't have a problem claiming God is infinite so obviously they really don't have a problem with the idea of infinity being possible.  I also think there is a big difference between comparing an infinite number of books (objects) with an infinite amount of time (concept).

Especially when we look at infinity in relationship to a multiverse and the possibility of there being some sort of space time curve where time actually curves back onto itself (i really don't understand the idea of time being curved as I've read as a possibility)...I guess it is also possible we are in some sort of time loop where universes get created, destroyed and others are reborn.  I'm not an expert on this stuff, I'm just mentioning things I've read about...they may not all necessarily be valid.

I think the one thing we know about the universe is that there is tons more we don't know than we do know.  I just keep up slightly with new theories and the ways in which current ones are developing and I think there are enough of them which don't rule out the possibility of infinity that it is premature for anyone to claim infinity is impossible.  Even if the universe is finite that wouldn't make a god any more likely because it would beg the question of how god is able to be infinite.


In the next section it turns into an intelligent design argument...of course a universe which can support life would appear fine tuned to life that exists in that universe...we wouldn't exist if the universe either hadn't formed into something non-chaotic (isn't there a theory that states chaos has a tendency to form order?) then life couldn't exist.  The earth works for us because we evolved here, if life started on any other planet it would look perfect for that planet yet not for ours.

Oh, typical....the website concluded it was the Judeo-Christian God...that's a huge leap in logic...those who make this jump make me wonder if they have studied any religion other than their own.  Anyway, I'm not one of the best representatives of science on this forum so I'm sure someone else will provide a better response.

Btw, welcome to the forum.

Regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics/Entropy:  The religious consistently misuse/misinterpret or outright lie about what it actually entails.  Here's an article about thermodynamics, and the quote that follows is the important part with the essential part in bold http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Evol ... #anchor_77 (http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Evolution.html#anchor_77)

Quote from: "article"Second law paradox



Aside from this divisional debate as to which branch of thermodynamics governs evolution; there is also the “second law paradox” which questions the universal tendency for disorganization in isolated systems as contrasted with the universal tendency for organization in evolving systems.  



To provide a typical example of misuse of the second law in scientific circles, in her 1997 book What is Sex biologist Lynn Margulis, one of the primary originators of the endosymbiotic theory, declares: "the famous second law of thermodynamics, the Grim Reaper of nature, states that disorder (entropy) in any closed system must increase.”  Her technical mistake here is the misuse of the word “closed system”, implying energy but not matter may cross the system boundary, with the correct word “isolated system”, implying that nothing may cross the system boundary.  In this manner, Margulis connects the Grim Reaper of life with the wrong version of the second law thus stimulating further confusion, and hence a perceived paradox.



There is no apparent paradox, however, for those as fundamentally trained in thermodynamics.  The resolution of this paradox acknowledges that nature seeks to minimize free energy H â€" TS in open systems, which exchange energy with their surroundings acting as a thermal reservoir, and to maximize entropy S in isolated systems. The paradox arises out of misapplied assumption that all systems are isolated.



Looked at another way, the entropy of the isolated system (e.g. the universe) does increase, just as the second law requires it; however, the paradox resolves because the second law does ''not'' require the entropy of open systems (e.g. lifeforms) to increase. That is, the entropy of the universe tends to increase, however, within this Universe, there are localized decreases of entropy (lifeforms) at the expense of even higher entropy increases elsewhere (e.g. food burning, solar energy generation, etc.), the net effect being an overall increase of entropy of the universe.

As for Origin of the Universe, I've always liked the "Quantum Foam" line of thought.

Here's a link, but there's plenty more info out on the web:
http://rational-church.com/universe.htm (http://rational-church.com/universe.htm)

proof god exists!
(a + b^n) / n = x, hence God exists; reply!

Quote from: "needanswers"Hey all, I'm a scientific atheist and this website kind of rubs my beliefs the wrong way. Does this make sense to you? The Big Bang Theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the impossibility of an infinite past all support the universe having a beginning.

http://powertochange.com/questions/qna7.html (http://powertochange.com/questions/qna7.html)

Isn't there a Commandment against bearing false witness? Do you exclude your particular lie, that you are an atheist, from that Commandment?

Why else would you be claiming to be an atheist while promoting religion in the same post?

Skeptigirl- ya i kinda got the same feeling

Inzueswetrust - thanks for the proof. im a believer now, .

I like how they've got the audacity to quote Hawking, who has clearly stated that he does not believe in god.  I tend to never trust quotes with ... anyhow just cause they tend to take out the parts that don't support their stance when they do that.  

Nice observation about their conclusion that it is of course the Judeo-Christian God that created the universe and everything in it.   I guess all the other gods were too busy?  If they weren't so wrapped up in being right they'd see how arrogant they sound.

That article/blog/whatever is just more of the typical religious straw men they always throw out.  Someone posts something like that and all of the religionists nod and repeat.  No one ever bothers to check with real scientists.  That Second Law of Thermodynamics has been reputed many many times, but they always trot that one out.

AND the "everything must have a beginning"... except, of course, their creator.  <yawn>  

While it is quite boring to read all of that all the time, it's quite disturbing how many people will agree with every word.  And those are the people running our country.  

Quote from: "rlrose328"AND the "everything must have a beginning"... except, of course, their creator.

Indeed.  A common theme of mine is that the religious frequently dig holes so deep that even they cannot climb back out of them.  This is a good example.  Some other favorites of mine,

We must doubt everything - we can't be certain of anything!  Okay, so how can you be certain about your faith if we must doubt everything?

We can't trust any of our senses and perceptions completely - they could be deceiving us!  Okay, so if all our experiences could be deceptive, then might not revelations be wrong?

We are limited and flawed creatures, so we must trust in a perfect being!  Okay, if we're limited and flawed, how could we identify which being is perfect?

So on and so forth.  They start with these grand accusations and utterly fail to realize that they've just sunk their own argument!  If we accept their premise as true, then we cannot accept their conclusion as true, and they just don't seem to realize this --- they want to free their own conclusions from the ramifications of their own premises without offering up any logical reason for doing so.  These arguments are all self-contradictory.  Frustrating, ain't it?

Alvin Plantinga is a hack; an apologist without ground to stand on who always begs the question and has a habit of presupposing the existence of both meaning and god in the universe before setting his little axoims.

Also, the BB theory says that it's easily possible that the Big Bang was a result of the previous Big Crunch, which was the cause of the previous Big Bang. This may have gone on forever. Not only that, but the science of a big bang singularity is so far outside the understanding of science, to formulate hypothesis around it is a waste of time.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution!
I mean, seriously, for evolution to happen, there would have to be some huge source of energy floating around in the sky. There's no way we wouldn't have found that if it existed.

Quote from: "Allhailtuna"The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution!
I mean, seriously, for evolution to happen, there would have to be some huge source of energy floating around in the sky. There's no way we wouldn't have found that if it existed.

I agree with you completely. The 2nd law of thermodynamics clearly decribes how species are changing over a period of time with the help of a huge source of energy floating in the sky (or even better outside time and space) :lol:

Its a fact because Jesus told me and he never has lied.

To whom it may concern(I just like typing that phrase):  http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Evol ... #anchor_77 (http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Evolution.html#anchor_77)

I did my best to read the indicated page allaway through - but it's just the same old crap, different wrapper, like Taco Bell. It does not deserve my careful attention.

For thousands of years, many millions of man hours were wasted concocting teleological arguments - precisely because they couldn't find one that worked. There are really only a few, in that wide Taco Bell menu; for when they are shot down, they are not discarded, they are repackaged for the unwary - but it's all the same regurgitated Beans n' Rice, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Before we may argue if God exists, we must define both God and Existence, which is (always) notably lacking. This is omitted precisely because any attempt to define a functional God immediately leads to logical absurdity - the existentially unendurable state of Omnicience, and the many failings of Omnipotence.

Theists then go further, tinker with the meaning of Existence itself by ad hoc insertion of any number of intangible, inexplicable, and of course unobservable, Spiritual Realms. Disordered thinking reigns - and becomes a Way of Life.

Face it - they're cheating, they don't give a damn for Truth. All they want to do is demonstrate themselves intellectuals to the majority of the population, which by definition has an average I.Q. of 100 - and that's not too difficult.

To assume that the existence of the Complex implies the existence of a (More Complex) Creator is to assume that a More Complex Creator implies another, Yet More Complex Creator, and so on ad infinitum; thus, the premise is not merely implausible, it is resoundingly FALSE, reductio ad  absurdum - and that's the end of that, FOREVER.

The second law of thermodynamics is - as I recall, here in my undies - IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, Entropy shall increase. Surely, the only entirely enclosed system is the Universe itself. The Earth receives tremendous energy input, of course. It is the only place life is observed.

Entropy DOES NOT imply disorder - quite the opposite. A saturated salt solution, the height of chaos, forms ordered crystals when cooled. Water itself, condensed by the cooling atmosphere, forms elaborate, highly ordered snowflakes. Each may be unique, but all display six-fold symmetry. Crystallography is not required to see this - but a closed mind is required to avoid it.

To assume Entropy means Disorder is to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the term. Entropy simply means that, over time, the local energy anywhere in the system will tend towards the average energy of the system - the system will move towards an energy homogeneity, a state of universal equilibrium. Being closed, energy is constant, by conservation of energy. Everything seeks equilibrium. Case closed.

And yes, absolutely, Evolution and Thermodynamics are completely in accord - evolution tends towards more efficient forms which supplant less efficient forms, and this can be neatly expressed in thermodynamic terms.

This tends to indicate that both are true.

The arguments are basic, attack at the root - do not be drawn into PseudoSophistry. Drop 'em in a first punch, and walk away - you have better things to do.  :borg:

Oh yes - NOTHING - the most confusing Idea of all.

And now, a pocket exposition of Metaphysical Ontology!

First, if I write or say "Nothing", it is a Symbol, which you immediately and helplessly associate with a Concept.

However, the concept is, in itself, a Thing - a material order inscribed upon a medium of the physical brain. It is a Mental Model, and it is quite Solid.

However, note that you now model "Nothing" with a Thing, its precise antithesis. In all probability, this will not work well. If manipulated mentally, one does not expect it to behave quite as the Thing - OOPS, the NoThing - would.

In fact, an actual manipulation of a Nothing (there can be only one!) is difficult, simply because there are None. So - what could the point of this NoThing Thing possibly be? It don't work so good.

We just use it to differentiate - this is a Thing, and this is Not (now, where did I put that NoThing...)

People seem to have great difficulty with the concept of what came "before." But if it was truly Nothing, it has no properties, or, it has but one, a metaproperty - the property of having no properties - in particular, it has no TEMPORAL property.

Thus, to say it came "before" is an incoherency - Before, After, and Now simply do not apply to it.

Run the indicated gedanken experiment, and you must find that Nothing is not, Nothing never was, and Nothing ever can be.

Infinity has the same problem. It is, in fact, a relatively trivial result of Cantorian Set Theory to show that Nothing equals Infinity - they are same-same, at best, different directions upon the same vector.

In Proper Applied Mathematics, things "tend towards" or "approach" infinity - you can't actually get there. All else is a exposition on the Abstractions themselves, which are not mirrored in any Reality.

If there "are" zero oranges in the fruitbowl, I delude myself regarding oranges - and rarely note that there are no elephants, Grand Operas, or Seifert Galaxies in there, either. In fact, I must conclude the entire Universe resides in my fruitbowl - in a virtually zero quantity.

And this is perhaps why it took so long for a Zero symbol to appear, so late in mathematics - but now it's there, it's mighty handy, and we aren't really paying much philosophical attention to it anymore.  
 :borg:

so are you saying strings, branes, energy, whatever have always been here or were they created by something else? Either way you have an infinite regress.  I agree that nothing is an abstract that only exists as the opposite of a thing or things. But, if everything is created by something before it, wouldn't you trace the present back forever?

I must say - I'm a little frustrated, I wrote back, about four pages - and the Board seems to have dumped it all when I tried to preview. I will try to be brief, and get back later - I have created some Monster Topics to post, and will send a Notification throughout the Board when I do. I mean to ORGANIZE something...

Anywho. The question is, is there is, or is there ain't, a first cause, and the answer should satisfy everyone -

Yes.

For I can truly say, without fear of contradiction, that the proposition -

NOTHING is the First Cause.

Can be taken in both apparent senses -

a Nothingness (a PseudoThing) caused everything, and
Nothing (ever) caused anyThing.

That last statement is bigger than it looks.

In summary - First, there is Nothingness. Only it may contain the MetaDuality of Zero and the same thing, Infinity. Then Duality itself, a Self-Referential MetaProperty arises - it is only Duality because it happens First in relation to Nothing's Zero on the scale, as opposed to the previously mentioned inherent MetaNonProperty of Nothingness, the property of having no properties.

Duality is a single, almost featureless property - the property of not being any other thing. When one single thing arises with this property, there is automatic Duality between it and Nothingness - far simpler than Twoness.

The thing and this property are simultaneous? Not necessarily - perhaps there is only this disembodied property. When it happens, Time Begins, Time Zero.

Time One is one quantum instant away - 5.4 x 10 to the Minus 43rd second, the Mysterious Planck Epoch. In the nonInterval between 0 and 1, Duality multiplies rapidly, but in a certain subunit of time sufficient to account for all Dualities. At time 1, Duality Generation is over - and Objects come to be to satisfy each. Henceforth, there are a fixed number of  Dualities/Objects.

From our Frame of Reference (any possible within the Universe, or the Universal Frame itself) Time does not 'begin" all time POINTS to this time, but it is Time Zero - and thus, does not exist, never did - like Space, Time is Finite, yet Unbounded in this sense. Think of the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and why it is not.

There is no First Cause from our Viewing Frame, only incoherence - the Possible First Thing has no Temporality, and "firstness" does not apply to It, only our limited imagination gives it any.

And OH how we struggle to make "sense" of it, when it has none. It is a perfectly inconceivable, er, Thing. Many do not believe in these, but I believe - in this single one.

________________________________

Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks to SOMEWHERE.
Religion is a Light in the Fog. The Fog is so much bigger.

Hey Promethium, if you're still out there, I've been contemplating this post for several days and I'm having a lot of trouble understanding it.  If you get a chance, could you clarify what you mean by words like "MetaDuality" and "MetaProperty"?  Or why "Zero" and "Infinity" are the same thing?  I'm having no luck deciphering these thoughts    

Also, props for this paragraph, I liked this a lot:

Quote from: "Promethium147"From our Frame of Reference (any possible within the Universe, or the Universal Frame itself) Time does not 'begin" all time POINTS to this time, but it is Time Zero - and thus, does not exist, never did - like Space, Time is Finite, yet Unbounded in this sense. Think of the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and why it is not.

WEEL, I'm a WordChopper.

Zero and Infinity basically have no properties. They are relative directions, like up and down. They have no physical analogues; they are merely concepts, and imperfect ones. The smallest thing we assume (a string?) is very small, and the largest thing (the Cosmos) is very large, but they are known, finite sizes.

Not the Concepts, but the Things per se, zero and infinity, have no properties; thus, they have exactly the same properties, and are the same thing, but - that thing doesn't exist either. Zero and Infinity and everything else that does not exist are the same, they have no properties, they are all equal and indistinguishable, and are NoThings.

We say for instance that a function runs away to infinity, but we do not say it reaches there - we say it is Undefined at that point.

Space has a minimum span - Planck length. Time has a minimum tick - a Planck interval - these are sometimes called God Units. Look 'em up on Wikipedia, there's a long list of minimum units, I think.

Duality is not Twoness, it is Identity - the raw property that I am not any other thing, which is not a DIRECT individual property - everything has this property, yet this same property makes everything different. It is a MetaProperty, or a Property of Properties THEMSELVES.

The only property of Zero and Infinity is that they have no direct properties, and this is a unique property itself - but it is a property of the NoThing's properties, not the NoThing itself - it's a MetaProperty.

It would seem that the Universe is - Holographic.

This means that every thing in the Universe contains all the Universe - at a very low resolution.

If I take a hologram of myself, a portrait - then break it into small pieces, EACH PIECE will contain the entire image - a lot of small, identical portraits of various sizes and RESOLUTIONS, the resolution of each piece being dependent on the surface area of that same piece.

The whole image is evenly stored and distributed throughout the surface of the hologram.

The internet (and the human brain, too) rely on distributed information - in the brain, it allows us to heal from local brain damage without losing key information, while on the internet, it is basically designed to make Information and Communications systems relatively invulnerable to thermonuclear attack.

We've discovered some creepy things, like Loosely Coupled Particles. This is a pair of subatomic particles that respond instantly - across any space - to changes in the state of the other paired particle. Now, if we could MANIPULATE a particle and another would respond instantly at any distance at all, we have a communications system that is not only faster than light - it's literally instantaneous, everywhere.

And of course, we could make a computer core along these lines, and any calculation of arbitrary complexity would take - time zero.

I guess biology itself ceases to be relevant at that point.

However, I did work for some time on electronically synchronized photosynthesis - an idea relying upon the time it takes for energy to transit up the antenna arrays in a chlorophyll molecule - and we recently discovered, by means of a most subtle experiment at MIT - that the actual time this takes is precisely zero - it's the first known quantum biological effect(!)

This has major implications regarding the neurochemistry of the brain.

So - take some Psilocyn, and call me in the morning. Works for me.

Like, Finitude.

Hey man - thanks for the response.

I think I get what you're saying about properties and existence and such.  For example,

QuoteWe say for instance that a function runs away to infinity, but we do not say it reaches there - we say it is Undefined at that point.

This is a good example.  I'm with you.

QuoteSpace has a minimum span - Planck length. Time has a minimum tick - a Planck interval - these are sometimes called God Units. Look 'em up on Wikipedia, there's a long list of minimum units, I think.

Yummy - brain food.  I'll check 'em out - I'm not familiar with these.  Given that there is a minimum span and minimum "tick", I really see where you're going....

QuoteDuality is not Twoness, it is Identity - the raw property that I am not any other thing, which is not a DIRECT individual property - everything has this property, yet this same property makes everything different. It is a MetaProperty, or a Property of Properties THEMSELVES.

The only property of Zero and Infinity is that they have no direct properties, and this is a unique property itself - but it is a property of the NoThing's properties, not the NoThing itself - it's a MetaProperty.

Okay.  Thanks - I see what you meant.

Quotewhile on the internet, it is basically designed to make Information and Communications systems relatively invulnerable to thermonuclear attack.

Yeah, DARPA, and all that jazz....

QuoteWe've discovered some creepy things, like Loosely Coupled Particles. This is a pair of subatomic particles that respond instantly - across any space - to changes in the state of the other paired particle. Now, if we could MANIPULATE a particle and another would respond instantly at any distance at all, we have a communications system that is not only faster than light - it's literally instantaneous, everywhere.

:lol:  "creepy"!  I admire your pluck.  I never thought of this as "creepy", but I guess it is.  I always just thought of this as "weird".

QuoteAnd of course, we could make a computer core along these lines, and any calculation of arbitrary complexity would take - time zero.

Indeed - bad news for the cryptographers.

Thanks again for the response!

I don't understand the necessity of Christians to prove that a god exists.

Is their faith that hollow?

Isn't that the definition of faith - the belief in that which cannot be proved?

Why do these people insist on fighting battles outside of their own arena of understanding?

Christian "Scientists" always make me laugh. They should stop crying themselves to sleep at night because they cannot prove the existence of any god and just accept their belief through faith or just stop fighting for what they know is bullshit and accept that they are atheists.

Entropy is a red herring.

If god created the universe... who created god??? :pwese:

I KNOW!!!

The Giant Cheese Men!!!