No supernatural, no gods.

[DrZoidberg]

My favourite theist quipy name for atheism is: futilitarianism

 

[DrZoidberg]

Creation, the physical universe only came about when there was the intention by the designer, like that of humans... a reflection, when they created machines.

Creation or transition? There is no evidence the universe was ever created. It is believed there was a transition of its state, but there is no creation of the universe. If you have evidence for that, a Nobel is awaiting you.

Creation or transition. As you indicated " it is believed there was a transition of its state". There are two beliefs.

There's more than just two viable theories. There's hundreds. Not to mention all the ones we haven't thought of yet. Slowly physisists are whittling down the number. But since it requires stuff like the Large Hadron Collider to progress, it'll be a while before there's any consensus.

The main problem is that the Big Bang wiped out the evidence of whatever was there before. The event horizon obscures whatever is beyond it. We haven't even done any experiments physically in other galaxies. By necessity, we're making a lot of assumptions.

But Jimmy Higgins is correct in that we have no reason to think there ever was nothing. Probably there was always something and that something is eternal. Just because our capacity to intuitively imagine how that would work doesn't mean it's not true.

A more correct question is, how can something be changed into something else. Which doesn't quite have the same profound ring to it. The most mind blowing thing about the universe is that nothing (empty space) has a positive charge. Try intuitively making sense of that? I don't think it can be done. I don't think even Feynman could reconsile that in his brain. Not without using pen and paper.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Alas, wouldn't a natural phenomena generally be expected to be repeatable?

If God is eternal,...

Yeah, nothing like the fake hypothetical from a theist. Well, if God was eternal... then that solves all of the arbitrary issues I created regarding our existence.

No surprise to get that response from an atheist. One moment the atheist talks in hypothetical mode discussing what would "natural" mean, relating to god's or God but then... the atheist slips out of the mode, and the dialogue morphs into a different angle of conversation. " Yeah god's would follow the same laws if natural .... Yeah God isn't real".

God always existing could be seen as 'ultimately' natural.

But if it were natural, that would imply some set of rules exist in which the god is bound to.

As you're in hypothetical mode here..
... It does seem a little limiting compared to the God of the bible, "being bound to.." describes instead the lesser god entities... Sure we can include miracles, like healing diseases, raising the dead, or walking on water, under natural phenomena, which requires at least.. paradoxically, not being bound to rules so much.

(The use of 'natural' in the current context, 'wasn't' my hypothetical BTW... it originated from other peoples posts, I am just engaging in it )

'Always existing' would mean, to always be 'expected to be repeatable", in a manner of speaking.

At no point in time, has the universe not existed. At no point in time will the universe stop existing.

Like many conversations. You say universe, we say God.

Only one of those two things has been observed.

Creation, the physical universe only came about when there was the intention by the designer, like that of humans... a reflection, when they created machines.

Creation or transition? There is no evidence the universe was ever created. It is believed there was a transition of its state, but there is no creation of the universe. If you have evidence for that, a Nobel is awaiting you.

Creation or transition. As you indicated " it is believed there was a transition of its state". There are two beliefs.

You are trying to equate a state of mind that is similar regarding the big bang and a god. Calling those two beliefs is much like calling a playboy magazine and A Tale of Two Cities literature.

 

[Learner]

If God is eternal, this would be an interesting perspective...

God always existing could be seen as 'ultimately' natural.

Why bother with a God?

If the universe is eternal, no creator is necessary.

If nothing can be eternal, then God is just as much in need of a creator as the universe is. More so, given that we can see how life, and subsequently intelligence, can arise from a very simple starting point, given billions of years.

The sophisticated theologian answer is essentially that only God can be eternal, not the Material Universe. Special pleading.

Did you notice bilby's mention of billions for a starting point.
Science has given the universe an age. A 15 billion year age estimation.

Of course we are also told by these same sophisticated theologians that God is outside of time. For God all is an eternal now.

Context to this regards a non materialistic entity.

For God, the past, present, and future are all one thing. So God's creation of the material Universe is eternally happening from God's perspective. So the Universe is eternal. And has no real begining. Pointing this out to sophisticated theists who tells us a material Universe is impossible is quite jolly fun.

And I pointed out to you, that scientists has given an age to universe. Are they wrong there's and age for the universe?

Unless there's another definition to material universe, that you mean, which you can kindly clarify.

Aristotle thought that the Universe was infinite. But also taught that there cannot be infinite things in this Universe. Or there would be no place to put infinite things. Aristotle did not understand the concept of infinity.

Theists today we're born in the times of a technologically advanced world, who would also understand infinity.

But for some theologians, that is why infinite regression of material things must be impossible. And so the Universe must be created by an intelligent, Unmoved Prime Mover. Above nature as it were. Supernaturalism, though Aristotle did not use that term. Yes, it makes no sense. But for sophisticated Catholic theists, it is hard to make them reason.

Georges Lamaitre a Catholic priest, didn't do too bad with his reasoning, becoming known as the father of the big bang idea.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The age of our little Islan Universe is 13.75 billion years. But the Multiverse we are part of is infinite in size and age.

 

[Wiploc]

Did you notice bilby's mention of billions for a starting point.
Science has given the universe an age. A 15 billion year age estimation.

Very roughly, 15 billion years is as far back as we can see.
The fact that we can't see any earlier doesn't mean that nothing happened earlier.

And I pointed out to you, that scientists has given an age to universe. Are they wrong there's and age for the universe?

Hawking and Asimov said the universe began at the big bang, but then they added something like, "At least we can say the big bang was the beginning, since we don't know what happened before that."

They're saying the universe is at least fifteen billion years old. They are not saying it isn't older.

Now, my sources are old, stale. If you want to tell me that the current scientific consensus is really that there was nothing before the big bang, then I'm happy to listen. Eager to listen.

But, last time that happened, last time a theist insisted that science now believes that the big bang was the ultimate beginning, I went on campus and found a cosmologist, and put the question to him: What is the current scientific consensus as to what happened before the big bang?

He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."

That's my latest information on the subject. If you have new information that conflicts, I'd like to hear about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And I pointed out to you, that scientists has given an age to universe. Are they wrong there's and age for the universe?

Are you suggesting you are fine with taking astrophysicists out of context?

 

[Shadowy Man]

But, last time that happened, last time a theist insisted that science now believes that the big bang was the ultimate beginning, I went on campus and found a cosmologist, and put the question to him: What is the current scientific consensus as to what happened before the big bang?

He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."

That's my latest information on the subject. If you have new information that conflicts, I'd like to hear about it.

I’m not a cosmologist but I think the current consensus is that there is a density singularity at t equals zero in our current cosmology. Singularities are mathematical indications of an incomplete physical theory. Until we have an improved physical theory it is pure speculation to extrapolate into that singularity.

 

[steve_bank]

t0 of the BB is not t0 of the initial conditions.

It ends up in philosophy and reigin.

Where did the initial conditions come from?

1. God winked it into existence.
2. It popped into exiatwence from nothing without causation.
3. Universe always existed and always will in changing forms.


Unless you abandon causality the unverse has always been.

Scientific specilation is not scientfic fact, unless you make 'science' into an omniscient god.

 

[robnisch]

Preternatural - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nuns at my grade school used this term.
I thought they were referring to god and angels.

 

[SIB]

In order to show that gods exist, one must first prove the supernatural exist. Correct?

To me, no, to show if a god exist we have to look at what we are calling god. What traits are you calling God. Limiting the definition is what religion-ist type thinkers do. I saw the term fundamental think types used. Atheist or theist, these types are dangerous to the rest us.

Its more logical to believe we are part of a larger more complex system. Then we look at what "life" is. Are we part of a larger system of life becomes the discussion point. It looks like we might be. So much so that that it is, at least, a reasonable belief. Based on observation anyway. Anti-religion religion might have to suppress that belief, but to the more reasonable person with no agenda, its a reasonable belief.

Now, could deity believers be mistaken that it is all powerful thing-a-ma-jig? yeah sure, but the belief that we are not part of a larger more complex system is as much faith based as any deity belief I know. My experience has been hearing the special pleading of "We don't have to make a claim" or the ever popular "I am not talking about that" is used to shout down any and all beliefs. I mean, yeah, ok, but after 100's to 1000's of post at some point we have to call them what they are.

 

[SIB]

Machines helping design machines. This is wonderfully natural, if that's the language we go by. But the 'first cause' to these machines was an 'intention', a creation 'purposely' designed by human 'intellect'.

We started out as bacteria, which thanks to evolution, create hominids who later evolved big brains enough to design CPUs and AI. Eventually AI wil design and creates CPUS etc. The Universe was created to be home to intelligent machines. We are mere intermediates steps to that end.

exactly ... I would change one thing in your view tho. We are a machine that thinks its "alive".

The biosphere created us like a mother creates a baby. The universe ...

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

My favourite theist quipy name for atheism is: futilitarianism

Generation Z is abandoning organized religion. Now, 20% are self indentifying as atheist or agnostic. Among the average American population, atheists and agnostics are 10% of the population, and that heavily skewed to older Baby Boomers and Silent Majority, who are dying off. Future American general population will be far more atheist.

 

[bilby]

Did you notice bilby's mention of billions for a starting point.
Science has given the universe an age. A 15 billion year age estimation.

Sure. I am a human; I have an age too. But that I am 53 years old doesn't imply that humanity is 53 years old.

Billions of years is how long it took for our particular form of life to arise, starting from a very simple state of the universe.

Every single scrap of mass-energy that makes up my 53 year old self has existed for at least ~15 billion years. There's no reason to imagine that that represents the point at which it all began to exist (something which would contradict the first law of thermodynamics), any more that there's a reason to imagine that the first human being, or indeed the entire universe, began to exist 53 years ago.

I just cannot have personal knowledge of anything that happened more than 53 years ago, unless it's far enough away that I could see it happening, as it's image photons arrived in my lifetime.

And the furthest away that we can see is ~15 billion years.

What happened before that isn't knowable; But calling it "the age of the universe" isn't a claim that nothing existed before that time, just that we cannot know about it.

 

[steve_bank]

Machines helping design machines. This is wonderfully natural, if that's the language we go by. But the 'first cause' to these machines was an 'intention', a creation 'purposely' designed by human 'intellect'.

We started out as bacteria, which thanks to evolution, create hominids who later evolved big brains enough to design CPUs and AI. Eventually AI wil design and creates CPUS etc. The Universe was created to be home to intelligent machines. We are mere intermediates steps to that end.

exactly ... I would change one thing in your view tho. We are a machine that thinks its "alive".

The biosphere created us like a mother creates a baby. The universe ...

We think we are alive, a new perspective.

 

[SIB]

Alas, wouldn't a natural phenomena generally be expected to be repeatable?

If God is eternal, this would be an interesting perspective...

God always existing could be seen as 'ultimately' natural. 'Always existing' would mean, to always be 'expected to be repeatable", in a manner of speaking. Creation, the physical universe only came about when there was the intention by the designer, like that of humans... a reflection, when they created machines.

As an atheist, I think so. God can be as natural as anything else. Like you and your body are one ... the universe (although I see no need to go that large)and god are one. No supernatural needed. Empirical evidence.

The 17 fields interacting. Potential differences in those fields interacting. 10^12 or so cells interacting that are actually the fields. Those field permeate all of space space-time. Well, the fields are space-time, but whatever.

To me, the only people that do not understand that, in itself, shows that belief in something more (whatever it is) seems more reliable than the reverse are not in these discussions to just describe the system we are in to the best of our ability. I mean if we are relying on observation being sorted out through e use of the scientific method anyway. If its about a statement of belief, well, that's tends to look like religion-ist doing what religion-ist do.

To the theist side. I have no idea why they don't see that believing in flat earth is the same as believing in a dude died, woke up three days later, then flew away.

 

[SIB]

Machines helping design machines. This is wonderfully natural, if that's the language we go by. But the 'first cause' to these machines was an 'intention', a creation 'purposely' designed by human 'intellect'.

We started out as bacteria, which thanks to evolution, create hominids who later evolved big brains enough to design CPUs and AI. Eventually AI wil design and creates CPUS etc. The Universe was created to be home to intelligent machines. We are mere intermediates steps to that end.

exactly ... I would change one thing in your view tho. We are a machine that thinks its "alive".

The biosphere created us like a mother creates a baby. The universe ...

We think we are alive, a new perspective.

lol, no, I am no where near that cleaver. Ultimately, how do we describe objects? I think, in large part, its based on how volumes of space-time interact with the system around that volume. I think, and I could be off base, that the internal workings are just the internal structure.

For example. A 50ft chair. It aint a chair.

 

[Learner]

The age of our little Islan Universe is 13.75 billion years. But the Multiverse we are part of is infinite in size and age.

Thanks CC, I see in context where you're coming from. This universe was what I meant.

It's interesting to see posters take to the eternal concept of the universe. And here's the surprise - I have never been a real fan of the BB concept, stemming from people finding issues with idea, which was a little off putting..which couldn't be helped causing me some doubt for years, although I am probably out of date. The concept is good in theory but already there was for me, a spanner in the works with the idea, so to speak... not so different to posters pointing out 'know one knows' what was BEFORE the BB etc..

I believe in a beginning, but not from a 'central point' for example, the physical universe (+ distant galaxies) all appeared 'at the same time'!

I entertained or engaged in this conversation, generally to remind some of atheists, they were once all for the BB concept. The argument conversion, the BB and 'beginning of creation' has been evolving, at least from what I see imo, but makes a good conversation nevertheless.

 

[Shadowy Man]

To the theist side. I have no idea why they don't see that believing in flat earth is the same as believing in a dude died, woke up three days later, then flew away.

Except that a dude dying, rising three days later and flying away is exceedingly more likely than a flat earth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have never been a real fan of the BB concept

although I am probably out of date.

The concept is good in theory

Okay, so the Big Bang is "good in theory", but you've never been a fan of the concept, though admittedly you "out of date" whatever that means, which is a cute way to spin "utterly uneducated on, and not willing to even look into, the subject".

but already there was for me, a spanner in the works with the idea, so to speak... not so different to posters pointing out 'know one knows' what was BEFORE the BB etc..

I have no idea, so to speak, what in the heck you are trying to get across.

I believe in a beginning, but not from a 'central point' for example, the physical universe (+ distant galaxies) all appeared 'at the same time'!

What you believe and what has been repeatedly supported by all sorts of evidence, including the CMB, don't need to be in sync. You are allowed to be completely wrong if you want to ignore the huge mountain of evidence.