Zone1 Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust

[buttercup]

Well I went back and edited my thoughts in that resnse for sake of clarity.



Yeah. It sure can. And does.



Well there's science and then there's political science. Two completely antithetical phenomenon.

Anyway. I'm hungry. And I'm kind of tred of Daving on here anyway.

I'm gonna go make some pork chops.

AAAHHH!!! I was going to give you a thumbs up, until I read the last line.

Bah. lol

 

[Natural Citizen]

AAAHHH!!! I was going to give you a thumbs up, until I read the last line.

Bah. lol

I'm not really making pork chops.

I just don't like ending dialogue on a bad note.

So it was my attempt at humor.

 

[buttercup]

I'm not really making pork chops.

I just don't like ending dialogue on a bad note.

So it was my attempt at humor.

Grrrr, ok, now I feel silly. haha.

Anyway, have a good supper. I gotta figure something out to eat over here too.

 

[ding]

Of course. Because it's utter bullshit. Why wouldn't I recoil at empty accusations?

Of course you do. Don't deny it.

I don't care why you're not an atheist. Believe whatever you want. Just quite casting aspersions at the rest of us. Asshole.

It's not bullshit and you recoil because you have never thought about it in these terms before. But these are the logical conclusions of atheism.

I don't blame you for recoiling at it because I would to.

I'm not casting aspersions. I am telling you like it is. Would you like for me to prove it by telling you how I see myself? Because I suspect you would use my arguments against me. If I told you how I was more than just matter, that I have a soul and the spirit of God within me, you would be arguing I am only matter and that those beliefs were nothing more than electro chemical responses in my brain. Right? If I told you how I could see how I was being pruned to become a better person than I was, you would tell me that's my imagination, right? If I told you that my faith has turned on all the learning centers of my mind, you would tell me it wasn't real, right? But I am telling you that I have traveled both paths and that I have never had so much peace, happiness and prosperity in my entire life. I've tested both paths. You haven't.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Grrrr, ok, now I feel silly. haha.

Yeah, I'm a dick.

Anyway, have a good supper.

Thank You!

I gotta figure something out to eat over here too.

Well if you're jonesing for the look, taste and smell of murder but don't really condone murder itself, maybe try one of them plant-based burgers.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Heh heh. I'm just messing with you.

Alright, then. You all have a good evening.

 

[ding]

I understand. I haven't read all his posts regarding science, but if he is misrepresenting the nature of science, then I agree that that's the wrong way to go about making an argument for theism.

I haven't. Let me tell you what science is.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

He quibbled over my saying the phrase of "the science of the big bang." That's his issue. I can explain the science of the big bang in my sleep because I have spent a lot of time studying it. He doesn't know the first thing about it. Which is why all he can do is make dumb accusations and stupid statements with zero supporting evidence.

 

[ding]

Yeah, I'm a dick.



Thank You!



Well if you're jonesing for the look, taste and smell of murder but don't really condone murder itself, maybe try one of them plant-based burgers.

View attachment 905141

No. You are prideful.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No. You are prideful.

Yeah, but it's just an act I do. If I'm gonna ride on the bus, I may as well try to blend in.

I'm actually a pretty humble feller.

 

[ding]

Yeah, but it's just an act I do. If I'm gonna ride on the bus, I may as well try to blend in.

I'm actually a pretty humble feller.

I believe that too. I'm open to any suggestions on how I can say what I believe and why I believe it without offending people. But it seems to me that that isn't possible here.

 

[Natural Citizen]

He quibbled over my saying the phrase of "the science of the big bang."

No, I quibbled over you wrapping it up in a box and putting a bow on it and calling it ''the science'' as if the Big Bang is settled and all of the questions have been answered already and because you know that questions arising from the Big Bounce theory would challenge your entire shtick regarding the 2nd law. Which you spend/have spent an inordinate amount of time invoking for no other reason than to confirm you faith.

As I said. I know how you operate.

It's simply not necessary to do, ding. Nothing can ever really be proven scientifically anyway. Why? Because there's always more questions. Always.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I believe that too. I'm open to any suggestions on how I can say what I believe and why I believe it without offending people. But it seems to me that that isn't possible here.

You can say whatever you believe. It doesn't offend me.

Only way I'd ever be offended on here is if somebody called me a scoundrel.

I'm just shooting my pie hole off just like anyone else.

 

[ding]

No, I quibbled over you wrapping it up in a box and putting a bow on it and calling it ''the science'' because you know that questions arising from the Big Bounce theory would challenge your entire shtick regarding the 2nd law. Which you spend an inordinate amount of time invoking for no other reason than to confirm you faith.

As said. I know how you operate.

It's simply not necessary to do, ding.

Do you have any idea the wall of text I would have to write to actually describe the science and how many times I have already done so?

Your bias is preventing you from seeing reality. You have a very convenient excuse. Where do you think your response falls on this matrix?

The Science of the Big Bang
We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

The Big Bang began as a quantum tunneling event of paired particle production with matter/anti-matter pairs popping into existence annihilating each other and releasing massive amounts of energy as per e=mc^2 and creating more paired particles it was a chain reaction of epic, unimaginable proportions. The universe should have been filled only with radiation as particles which pop into existence do so in pairs and annihilate each other. But in this case for every 1 billion anti-matter particles that popped into existence 1 billion and 1 matter particles popped into existence. There are two theories as to why this was the case but it is unimportant to this narrative. So for whatever reason there were not perfect symmetry, the 1 billion anti matter particles and the 1 billion matter particles annihilated each and left behind the CMB. While the 1 particle per 1 billion matter particles and 1 billion anti matter particles is what was left behind and is what we call the universe.

E=mc^2 and the CMB explains and confirms the quantum tunneling event that we call the big bang. It explains all matter and energy in the universe and all the radiation in the CMB which came from the mutual annihilation of matter and anti-matter which was a result of paired particle production.

 

[ding]

You can say whatever you believe. It doesn't offend me.

Only way I'd ever be offended on here is if somebody called me a scoundrel.

I'm just shooting my pie hole off just like anyone else.

Did you ever considered the possibility that I actually know what I am talking about?

 

[ding]

No it's not.

We don't know how the universe came to be and you just made up a character to explain it.

I love how you systematically dismiss all evidence for God without ever considering it.

Wouldn't you have to examine it before dismissing it?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Did you ever considered the possibility that I actually know what I am talking about?

I think you understand standard texbook cosmology regarding Einstein's theory of the Big Bang. And the standard textbook definition of the Big Bang itself. So there's really no need to bother with your previous post. It's just standard textbook cosmology. All you really did was echo it. I do not require a review of it. What I would question, however, is your regard for modern textbook cosmology.

What you reduced to ''unimportant to this narrative,'' I do not reduce and trivialize in the same way when considering the phase before the so-called Big Bang.

It's important to ask what started the inflation. How long did it go on? What stops it? All of that while also considering the bi-directional nature of every other Law of physics. It's not so much proving your theory wrong, because, unlike math, that's impossible in nature. I'm more so wrapping around that theory.

Save this for tomorrow, though. It's late and I don't feel like debating the universe with you for the rest of the night.

 

[ding]

Because truth and reality have a particular meaning in language. If you say God is reality. You are saying something that's basically meaningless. A reality you can test. It's falsifiable. God you can't test or falsify. In order to say something is true, you need to be able to offer evidence. Inserting your opinion in the place of truth is fallacious.

This makes your argument circular.

You have to start with the rejection of the ridiculous premise that there is an infinite sequence of causes. So for the sake of argument let's start there. This means that the very first cause had to be uncaused. Which means it was eternal into the past and always existed. Logically we can call this existence. Now for something to be eternal it cannot be changing. It must - by definition - be eternal. So by those two attributes - eternal and unchanging -, we can rule out matter and energy as sources of creating space and time or existence. This means that whatever this existence is it cannot be a thing. Because things are made of matter and energy. And matter and energy cannot be eternal unchanging sources for existence because they aren't unchanging. The mere presence of matter and energy creates space and time. So whatever this is that is existence is beyond matter and energy and must be incorporeal. Truth is eternal. Truth is unchanging. Truth is reality. Reality is existence. Ergo God is existence.

Nothing circular here at all. Just good old plain logic.

 

[ding]

It's important to ask what started the inflation. How long did it go on? What stops it? All of that while also considering the bi-directional nature of every other Law of physics. It's not so much proving your theory wrong, because, unlike math, that's impossible in nature. I'm more so wrapping around that theory.

Why is that important? Of what use is that information? The reason I ask is because if there are good reasons for those questions, maybe you should have clicked on the link to the U of Oregon that I provided. There's a lot of information on inflation.

The Inflationary Universe​

• Horizon Problem
  • The cosmic microwave background is remarkably isotropic
• Flatness Problem
  • Any deviation from flatness early in the Big Bang would have quickly increased
  • Therefore, the early universe must have been very, very, very flat for it still to be nearly flat now
  • WHY?
• Puzzles of the Early Universe
  1. Why does the universe appear so flat?
     • Ω0 remarkably close to exactly one
     • not clearly open or closed, perhaps flat
     • but why so flat?
     • Flatness Problem
  2. How did the universe become so homogeneous and isotropic?
     Horizon problem
     • Background radiation nearly the same in all directions
     • Therefore - entire universe must have been at uniform temperature near beginning
     • But - different regions are not in contact and never have been
       • universe expanded before this could happen
• Answers from Grand Unified Theory (GUTS).
  • Inflationary Universe
    • At very early times, all fundamental forces were unified
    • Giving rise to vacuum energy
    • Causing rapid acceleration of expansion of the universe
    • Inflationary Epoch
• Grand Unified Theory (GUTS)
  • Quest of science is always to unify seemingly different things.
    • 1600's Newton - unified gravity in space and on earth.
      • "celestial and terrestrial gravity the same"
      • apples and the moon
    • 1800's Maxwell - unified electricity and magnetism
      • same force causes lightning and magnets
    • 1970's Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam - unified electricity and magnetism with weak nuclear force
    • Physics research today aims to find the GUTS - unifies further.
      • strong, electromagnetic, and weak are all the same force
• Inflation Solves Mysteries
  1. Why is universe so flat? (flatness problem)
     • Expansion flattens it
     • Like balloon suddenly expanding becomes very flat locally
  2. Why so homogeneous and isotropic? (horizon problem)
     • Universe was in contact before inflation
     • but not now

Each one of these hyperlinks are to important pieces of information about inflation.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Because the First Cause created time, the First Cause must exist outside of time. Timeless.

The First Cause also created space and matter. So the First Cause cannot itself be space or matter.

So to sum that up, the First Cause is timeless, spaceless, immaterial. (Which, btw, is the very definition of supernatural... something that is beyond the natural, physical world.)

Well, we're probably gonna be bouncing around quantum fluctuatons and all of that happy crap if you wanna add to it. The quantum realm is always a party favorite.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The reason I ask is because if there are good reasons for those questions, maybe you should have clicked on the link to the U of Oregon that I provided.

I'm rather confident that the answers to my specific questions will not be found on your links, ding.

The questions I ask pertain to the ''why'' of the matter.

I'm not interested in chasing your ball around ding.

Is that how this is gonna be?

I'd rather you approach those questions yourself.

That's actually why I questioned your regard for modern textbook cosmology, to be honest. I don't get the impression that you're really interested in discussing these things beyond traditional textbook cosmology.

But, no, I'm not chasing a wall of links around like a carrot on a stick, ding. I'm not chasing your ball and bringing it back to you.

I already told you that a few posts back.