Atheism

[RevolverRob]

The first part is not going to work. Entropy is chaos not complexity. Complexity lies between order and chaos, and all complex systems will eventually degrade because of the 2nd Law.

I think we're just talking past each other a bit here. I agree that entropy and complexity are not the same. But I think in our case, we get away with treating them functionally as the same. If complexity lies between order and chaos and zero entropy is complete order and infinite entropy is complete chaos, the bulk of the "entropy distribution" simultaneously overlaps with "complexity".

Systems begins simple, get more complex, and eventually degrade to chaos. Analogy wise apply the 2nd Law to an ecosystem from beginning to end, if destabilization of an ecosystem leading to (or caused by) extinction isn't chaos...then I dunno what is.

Back to us functionally calling them equivalent, we get away with it, because our system (universe) is old enough that it is no longer simple, but instead complex, but not yet far enough to be complete chaos (in other words we're in the part of the 'entropy distribution' where complexity and entropy overlap).

[GuanoLoco]

So you think a world without God is more interesting then a world with God? That's dark.

No, that’s clearly opinion on both counts.

The theories of Big Bang + Abiogenesis + Evolution are pretty interesting in their own right IMHO, plus whole thing is loaded with emissions from the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Including visible light.

It’s literally anything but dark (Cue rimshot).

As we learn more over time the darkness of our ignorance steadily recedes. (Cue second rimshot)

@blues has nothing on me tonight.

[TheNewbie]

No, that’s clearly opinion on both counts.

The theories of Big Bang + Abiogenesis + Evolution are pretty interesting in their own right IMHO, plus whole thing is loaded with emissions from the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Including visible light.

It’s literally anything but dark (Cue rimshot).

As we learn more over time the darkness of our ignorance steadily recedes. (Cue second rimshot)

@blues has nothing on me tonight.

If there is no just God and this is all some big joke, then yes that's dark. Of course that's an opinion.

The problem is many learn without wisdom, which often does not pull humanity out of its natural state of darkness.

[blues]

@blues has nothing on me tonight.

Would've been more accurate if you'd just said "blues has nothing".

Further affiant sayeth naught.

[holmes168]

I fail to see how the claim that there was nothing (apparently except God) then there was something (therefore God must have created something from nothing) is the least bit interesting much less logical or compelling.

The funny thing- that I do believe God exists out of time. I do believe in creationism- quite frankly IMO it’s the easiest thing to believe. No- I do not know if it was 6 days of 24 hours and then a day of rest. Or was it over millions of years? Christians are still having this debate.

I wish I still had the article pulled up but I read last night or this morning that Stephen Hawkings peer and friend said Hawking was wrong about the Big Bang. Actually- he claimed that there are ongoing bangs and really it should be the Big Bounce. Then- who knows maybe in a few years he will have been wrong too.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ys-friend.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...ral-relativity


Kind of like the coming ice age in the 80’s.....wait no, now it’s global warming.....except the books on temperature data maybe cooked???? Science is consistently changing its mind.

[GuanoLoco]

...Science is consistently changing its mind.

It doesn’t suffer from the hubris of claiming to be right the first time.

Some egos may get bruised in the process, but that’s OK.

You also need to remember to separate reporters reporting on sensationalized science from actual science.

I was looking up the cyclic theory / Big Bounce earlier, but I didn’t think it contributed to the conversation.

[Default.mp3]

Can you point me to where something truly comes from nothing ? There was NO THING and suddenly SOME THING appeared. I'm not asking this sarcastically.

Well, no, because there isn't any way to prove that the "something" isn't just a freak occurrence. For example, if 10 tons of solid gold bars bearing the emblem of the Spanish Empire appeared in you living room when you blinked, there's still a scientifically feasible explanation for the gold seemingly coming out of thin air (according to current theory, anyway). Incredibly unlikely, to the order that it should have taken a quadrillion years or whatever for it to happen a single time, but it's technically totally possible, simply due to the probabilistic nature of particles at their lowest levels.

I already gave you the example of vacuum energy. Vacuum is the closest thing we have to nothing within this universe, as it is the absence of matter; if you reject that, ad you did my earlier example, then I really can't give any examples, since science doesn't really concern itself with things that appear out of the "outside-of-the-physical-universe" nothing, since it would be meaningless to apply our human logic/rational/instruments to such a thing (some would even argue that it's not really a reasonable thing to ask about things outside of the universe from our context; it would be akin to asking "what is north of the North pole?"). If you do accept that stuff coming out of vacuum is good enough, another prime example are virtual particles.

Again, these are very technical things, which I will not claim anywhere near a good understanding of, but many of these things do seemly violate most folks' common sense, even if they are ultimately mathematically viable.

As to the whole ID argument, I'll note that the anthropic principle is a very unsatisfactory, yet undeniably possible, counter to the whole "finely tuned universe" idea (which in itself is somewhat suspect, depending on exactly what is meant by "finely tuned").

I wish I still had the article pulled up but I read last night or this morning that Stephen Hawkings peer and friend said Hawking was wrong about the Big Bang. Actually- he claimed that there are ongoing bangs and really it should be the Big Bounce. Then- who knows maybe in a few years he will have been wrong too.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ys-friend.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...ral-relativity


Kind of like the coming ice age in the 80’s.....wait no, now it’s global warming.....except the books on temperature data maybe cooked???? Science is consistently changing its mind.

The Big Bounce idea is not new, nor novel. It has long been known to be a potentially necessary consequence, depending on the curvature of the universe and other certain parameters.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Cyclic destruction and recreation of the universe is congruent with Hindu beliefs. So if there is a cyclic nature, does that observation (if true) void the one and only Genesis account. If you want to discount the Big Bang for a cyclical universe, are there theological problems with that.

I suggested to a Christian friend that intelligent design might be accommodated not by our poorly designed bodies but by the setting of the fundamental values of the physical constants that allowed the interactions of matter that we know. A deity could have set those and let the show roll on. This was very upsetting as he wanted a drafting board view of creating humanity more directly. The Adam and Eve story in some version must be it. Our crappy bodies now are because the perfect DNA of the first couple degenerated after the Fall and subsequent human shenanigans.

Just saying for sake of discussion.

[holmes168]

While I definitely disagree with some people- I’m glad to see a 40 page thread is relatively free from hated bombs.

Next up- flat vs round earth

[Caballoflaco]

If there is no just God and this is all some big joke, then yes that's dark. Of course that's an opinion

I find beauty and inspiration in the idea that what we see is what we get and since there are no second chances or some great reward when we die we should make the world and our selves the best we can with what little time we have to exist.