Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Sheldon wrote, "atheism is neither a belief nor a claim, and nothing can be rationally asserted from it beyond an atheist not believing in any deity or deities."
1. Do you think nature exists? Apparently, you do but I will defer to your answer.
2. You lack belief in any deity.
3. Then it seems like, if you think nature exists, for you its the only thing that exists.
...nature exists...
It is communicated and described by various terms. It is modelled. It has (dependant on area ie gravity vs weather) predictability.
What is your evidence for “something” outside of nature?
1. I said nature exists as an objective fact, are you saying the existence of nature is not an objective fact, but merely subjective opinion?
2. As do all atheists, that is what atheism means.
3. I don't care what you falsely assert about my atheism, you don't know what I believe or do not believe unless I tell you, and the only thing I have told you is that I am an atheist. You are simply repeating your earlier dishonest misrepresentation of atheism. Though just what you hope to achieve is not clear?
Is it mere subjective opinion that world is not flat ( spare me your dishonest semantics)? Is it mere subjective opinion that all living things evolved? Is it mere subjective opinion that the earth is not at the centre of the universe as your superstition claimed for centuries?
If as you claim there is no such thing as objective fact, then that claim has no more validity than the claim we are surrounded by invisible unicorns.
Who suggested that everyone is objective? How is this not a huge strawman?
@Apollo
Why is it you think a god was necessary to create this universe?
Fievel wrote, "Why is it you think a god was necessary to create this universe?"
I don't think it is necessary and I have posted that previously in many places in this forum over the years.
One of the striking things about the Krauss video is his insight into beliefs and preconceptions. We all have them he said, and he is correct. Your assumption that I think a god is necessary is an instance of a belief, preconception, presupposition....I believe it is very important for those who want to improve their thinking to be more aware of assumptions.
The belief that god created the universe is an assumption and therefore, strictly speaking is not provable.
The lack of belief in a deity and its corollary that nature is all that exists is also an assumption and therefore, strictly speaking, is not provable.
Theism and atheism are both in the realm of metaphysics. Neither is falsifiable, nor verifiable in anyway. This is why demanding proof of either is a non-starter.
The observation that theism and atheism are metaphysics, and not verifiable nor falsifiable, bears on the issue of objectivity and the so called neutrality postulate. There is no neutral ground. There is no ground, foundation, nor method to determine with necessity the correct perspective.
That is not a corollary of atheism, and you will be called on this lie each and every time. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in a deity, and nothing more.
Of course there is, just list all the beliefs you hold without any objective evidence, but that from no part of your superstitious religious beliefs? The foundation for belief is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated for it, where you lack understanding is that not believing a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim, for someone who keeps claiming to understand epistemology,, this howler suggest you don't understand it all. Studying something, and understanding it, are not the same thing.
Sheldon,
That's all your opinion. You have the requirement of "objective evidence" for whatever. But you don't supply any, so you don't meet your own standard you have for others. All you are giving is your beliefs and opinions while "objectivity" requires you to filter your personal views out. Really, every time you appeal to objectivity, you have painted yourself in a corner where you are not permitted to express you personal perspective.
Give me the title of a book and name of author on the subject of objectivity that you have read and agree with. I have asked for this many times. I would like a reference for all this "objectivity" stuff and not just your personal views.
You wrote, "where you lack understanding is that not believing a claim is not the same as making a contrary claim" . Among the beliefs you have, belief in God is not one of them. But you are not claiming God does not exist. Sounds like agnostic.
Presumably, you believe nature exists, so among your beliefs are nature exists, and you lack belief in God, so he is, for all practical purposes out of the picture. Practically speaking, you always write as if God does not exist, so saying that you are not making a contrary claim is superficial. I suppose you are hedging your bets, sitting on the fence. Even so, that is not a neutral position. Its a philosophical stance like any other.
However, in my post I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to the quintessential atheist, conforming to the traditional definition as disbelief in God. If you think the dictionary has it wrong, take it up with them.
@ Apollo
"The lack of belief in a deity and its corollary that nature is all that exists is also an assumption and therefore, strictly speaking, is not provable."
Bullshit. I lack a belief, there is your proof.
Back to Krauss' interview Min 14:20+ : - here Krauss states "...nature has designed itself...." Later about 26:30 he states "...we are a cosmic accident..."
So for him there is design in nature and it is a accidental (not intelligent) design. Apparently Dawkins also believes in accidental design.
In contrast the atheist John Gribbin reportedly believes in a form of intelligent design.
This bears on many issues, one of which is objectivity. If atheists are objective, why do they disagree with each other? It is interesting, however, that atheists seem to agree that the universe is designed. They just disagree on how it got that way.
Fucktard
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Whitefire13: I swear, I was just getting ready to make the very same post. Minus the pic! Krauss's accident, IS NOT ACCIDENTAL. Equivocation. In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.
You are treating Krauss like you treat your fucking religious texts. You miss every main point by focusing on bullshit!
Cognostic,
You don't like Krauss' chocie of word, namely, "accident". I guess you have to take that up with him.
At least we can agree the universe exhibits design.
In the meantime, you are welcome to clarify what, for you and Krauss, guided the design.
@ Whitefire13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E
David ... lol a shitload of ageees! Fuckin’ evolution man!
I've wondered if the origin of the Big Bang might not be a lot simpler than we think it is.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states (in an over-simplified way) that heat tends to flow from a source to a sink.
The reason why this happens becomes obvious if we think of molecules as billiard balls (an imperfect analogy, but stick with me) bumping around at random.
How much they bump around depends upon their kinetic energy, and the more (and faster) they bump around, the hotter the object.
When a hot object is placed in contact with a cool object, the rapidly bumping molecules hit the slower molecules of the cooler object until the kinetic energy is distributed equally, so the hot object cools down, the cool object warms up, and now there is no temperature difference.
This is an example of increasing entropy, and all of this is not even high-school physics, but middle-school science class.
My point is that The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a function of probability.
So, let us suppose that the entire Universe is in a state of maximum entropy, so that every part of the Universe is the same temperature . . . probably a small fraction of a degree above Absolute Zero.
If we wait long enough (and by long enough, let us suppose that I take the factorial of a google, expressed as[ [10^100] !] years), there would be a good chance that these radomly moving atoms would reshuffle themselves into a state of minimum entropy, which we call the Big Bang. This may seem improbable, but all I'm saying is that if you shuffle a trillion decks of cards together and constantly deal out poker hands, then--every once in a great while--you'll deal out a trillion royal flushes in a row.
The odds of a trillion royal flushes in a row are very small, but if you're dealing cards for an infinite amount of time, you'll still have an infinity of times when you've dealt a trillion royal flushes in a row.
So, the Universe spends most of it's time (if time has any meaning in maximum entropy, which it probably doesn't) in maximum entropy until--by chance--a Big Bang happens, which then slowly winds down until maximum entropy is all that exists . . . until another trillion royal flushes are dealt out by random.
I don't suppose that this scenario is actually what happens, but it is useful because it shows that random chance provides a way to give an infinite duration into the past, and an infinite duration into the future with no God and no violation of any physical laws.
Kevin,
Its an interesting idea.
Apparently, however, the laws of thermodynamics, and other laws, did not exist at the moment of the big bang. Space-time did not exist, gravity did not exist, and so on. There is no evidence material in any form existed pre-nature, pre-big bang. Consequently, it seems the origin issue is one that can not be determined by normal natural science.
That doesn't mean, however, that you can not have a pre-scientific belief that material pre-existed, and that it behaved the way you describe. It just means that such a pre-scientific belief is, stated another way, a faith.
Thank you.
All I'm saying, though, is that random chance applies to the physical laws, which "resets" the Universe when the "cosmic slot machine" (coined by Carl Sagan) hits the jackpot every once in a great while.
Now you are strawman'ing the big bang theory.
Nyarlathotep, "Now you are strawman'ing the big bang theory."
You have the seed of an idea there. Perhaps you could expand on it so there is something to deal with.
@Apollo
The big bang theory starts with matter, gravity, space-time, and heat already existing.
Reference from a science book please.
I'm not talking about the big bang theory, I'm talking about the instant the big bang commenced. I'm pretty sure Krauss stated that science has no data at the instant the bang commenced, and that the laws of physics and chemistry, and space and time did not exist at that moment.
Get this through your head: the big bang has initial conditions; part of which is a preexisting, homogeneous, isotropic, expanding hydrogen gas (plasma).
Nyar...” a preexisting...”
Cali wrote in Feivela’s thread re: origin of the universe. A hypothesis with a simple (loose word use) test. A great read.
Nyar, for your information, only “god” can pre-exist without a “creator” - phhhtttt, everyone “knows” that.
@ Nyarlathotep
Notice that despite many interesting comments expressing many opposing opinions on Krauss, it still references him?
Right, I could care less what Krauss said on a pot smoking pod cast.
@ Apollo
"Apparently, however, the laws of thermodynamics, and other laws, did not exist at the moment of the big bang. Space-time did not exist, gravity did not exist, and so on. There is no evidence material in any form existed pre-nature, pre-big bang."
Are you playing the "absence of evidence indicates evidence of absence" game?
What if I applied that argument your god, guess what the result is?
What a fucktard, Apollo just advanced a proposition that disproves god.
David wrote, "Are you playing the "absence of evidence indicates evidence of absence" game?"
Answer: No. Ontological/metaphysical assumptions are not provable, nor can they be disproven. Belief in God, and disbelief in God are not claims or hypothesis. They can't be tested in an evidential manner. Metaphysics is not an epistemological matter.
For example, someone may believe a singularity existed, it blew up, and our universe evolved. That's a pre-epistomological metaphysical belief. It can't be proven or disproven.
I can say well, I disbelieve in the 'singularity blew up all by istelf' idea. I believe God created nature. This too is not an epistemological issue. It can't be proven or disproven. The origin of the universe is a pre-epistemological issue.
People can believe what they want to believe concerning the origin.
@ Apollo
"For example, someone may believe a singularity existed, it blew up, and our universe evolved. That's a pre-epistomological metaphysical belief. It can't be proven or disproven."
That is brazen untruth, unless you are that ignorant.
We have been able to directly observe the Cosmic Microwave background, which appeared 380,000 years after the initial rapid expansion, and the math and physics do confirm our understanding back to just before the rapid expansion occurred.
The time of the creation of the Cosmic Microwave background was one of intense change, the universe was evolving from single particles into atoms.
What I have stated, as well as about any other reputable physicist, is that we WE DO NOT KNOW what occurred before rapid expansion.
There is no "metaphysical" imaginary crap, it is all a direct result of observations and brilliant thinking.
You are attempting to insert woo woo into a scenario where there is no reason or room for such fuzzy thinking.
You are a theist, please provide evidence on your god. This is the last time I will ask this question, else I will never respond to any more of your nonsense.
LAST CHANCE
Please provide evidence for your god.
David wrote, "What I have stated, as well as about any other reputable physicist, is that we WE DO NOT KNOW what occurred before rapid expansion."
Yes, I know. That's what I said, science doesn't know. Hence, speculations as to what happened prior are metaphysical. Atheists, who a priori lack belief in a creator, appear to have a choice: Either the material of the universe created itself, or it always existed. What ever one picks, its a metaphysical belief.
Pages