3.5billion yrs

[10CC]

For 3'5billion years life has existed on this rock we call earth.
For 3.5billion years every single one of those lives has DIED (sans current).
2000yrs ago according to some people everything changed, some don't die.
For the last 2000yrs every living thing has still died.
Which reality are you prepared to accept?
That is the question.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Ahhh, ok so we agree atheists believe 0+0+0+0+...= everything

I don't understand the importance or relevance of the issue regarding atheism. Or theism for that matter. It's an issue so many people harp on about but is completely irrelevant to me as an atheist and I don't know why theists consider it to be relevant either. Theism is about so many different things yet when arguing against an atheist who largely believes very few of those things theists just say, "yeah well at least I believe the universe began with something but you believe it begins with nothing." Their religion itself doesn't consider this to be particularly important in their tenements but they harp on as if it's a big deal and only with religion can the universe make sense. To begin with, no one knows how it all began and to assert logical consistency with one random guess(which is all it can be, there just isn't enough information on the subject to make an informed decision) and logical inconsistency with someone who does not agree with your random guess is just stupid. Secondly, it's not an important issue, it doesn't affect me one way or another how it all began, my problems with your religious views still exist even if a "god" is behind it all, I am 100% confident your religion is false.

So, stop harping on about something that is so completely unimportant and being so self righteous in thinking you've made some big point that is irrelevant to both me and you and is probably incorrect anyway.

[AdHoc]

Is it just me or are you being really evasive?

You took issue with my statement but you won't clarify your position on whether something or nothing caused everything?

I have to tell you I feel like I'm being tied in knots by you and it isn't much fun.

You want me to explain that I believe an uncaused personal God outside of time and space created everything? Sure thats what I believe and thats commonly understood that christians believe that on faith and that we can't prove it or explain how God can be infinite with no beginning or end. There it is. Touche and tu quo que and all that good stuff...

But if there is an atheist on this planet that believes something caused everything I would be really surprised. That would be extraordinary. If that's your opinion I am dying to hear more about it.

Good evening ad hoc,

In response to your query, yes, it is just you. The clear alternative, mentioned multiple times by your respondent, is that it is you who is being dilatory. Other than a detailed dissection of its incoherence, I am unsure what response you were expecting from your respondent, but I can't see it advancing a conversation.

But in hopes of bridging this divide, allow me to do the honors, noting that your statement, "0+0+ ... = everything," has at least two irreparably fatal flaws. The first, of course, is that "everything" is not a number, and so has no place in a mathematical equation involving any finite or infinite sum of numbers. Conversely, there is a second insuperable flaw, that "0" does not model any actual thing in the actual universe.

Numbers are mathematical concepts which "exist" only in the ontological sense of a Platonic ideal. Though quite useful on those occasions when they can be used to model a physical quantity or process, they are not the quantity or process. Their applicability to any quantity or process must be first demonstrated, then used, not merely asserted, and certainly not asserted incoherently as another's position with requests, let alone demands that the assertions be taken seriously.

As ever, Jesse
(Mathemagician)

Hi Jesse,
Other than correcting my statement, do you have a point you are trying to make? Or are you also unable to answer my question?

Hey I know I have lots of flaws and if thats all we're going to talk about this thread will never get beyond that rudimentary fact.

Sans cere
AdHoc

[AdHoc]

Ahhh, ok so we agree atheists believe 0+0+0+0+...= everything

I don't understand the importance or relevance of the issue regarding atheism. Or theism for that matter. It's an issue so many people harp on about but is completely irrelevant to me as an atheist and I don't know why theists consider it to be relevant either. Theism is about so many different things yet when arguing against an atheist who largely believes very few of those things theists just say, "yeah well at least I believe the universe began with something but you believe it begins with nothing." Their religion itself doesn't consider this to be particularly important in their tenements but they harp on as if it's a big deal and only with religion can the universe make sense. To begin with, no one knows how it all began and to assert logical consistency with one random guess(which is all it can be, there just isn't enough information on the subject to make an informed decision) and logical inconsistency with someone who does not agree with your random guess is just stupid. Secondly, it's not an important issue, it doesn't affect me one way or another how it all began, my problems with your religious views still exist even if a "god" is behind it all, I am 100% confident your religion is false.

So, stop harping on about something that is so completely unimportant and being so self righteous in thinking you've made some big point that is irrelevant to both me and you and is probably incorrect anyway.

Have I hit a nerve? Because not only is my question going unanswered by Connermt, Jesse is correcting my math and you are now telling me that my question is "so completely unimportant" and "irrelevant" so as to not even deserve an answer. This makes me think it might not be so irrelevant as you would like me to believe it is.

Why else would such a simple question be so desperately avoided? Tell you what, lets forget the whole thing... You're probably right its probably not a good question, I'm sorry I even brought it up.

I'll try to think of a more relevant question than the origin of the universe.

[1213]

People believe things based off of evidence all the time.

We have evidence that there is gravity, and we have a theory that explains and can make accurate predictions based off of our observations.
But I cannot "prove" it to you.

I just wanted to point out that you were asking for the wrong thing. ("Proof" instead of "evidence").

If you want evidence, you can find it here for starters (even though this was not my claim):
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-earliest-e ... years.html

I think radiometric dating is not reliable, because for example it assumes without good knowledge the conditions at the start point.

Also, it is interesting that in you link the material is carbon dated, even though according to the Wikipedia:
Radiocarbon dating (or simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating technique that uses the decay of carbon-14 (14 C) to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years Before Present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

And about gravity: if it means just that things fall certain way, then it can be tested and in my opinion therefore proved. If I can test something and it acts the way it was said, then for me it is proved. But it is totally different thing what is the explanation for the thing to happen.

But evidence is good thing to support beliefs. For example this world is for me evidence that God created.

How old is the Planet then?

I don't know.

[10CC]

Ahhh, ok so we agree atheists believe 0+0+0+0+...= everything

You may need to explain to this atheist how you came to the conclusion of your mathemagics and why you believe an atheist (me) would agree with it?

[Filthy Tugboat]

Ahhh, ok so we agree atheists believe 0+0+0+0+...= everything

I don't understand the importance or relevance of the issue regarding atheism. Or theism for that matter. It's an issue so many people harp on about but is completely irrelevant to me as an atheist and I don't know why theists consider it to be relevant either. Theism is about so many different things yet when arguing against an atheist who largely believes very few of those things theists just say, "yeah well at least I believe the universe began with something but you believe it begins with nothing." Their religion itself doesn't consider this to be particularly important in their tenements but they harp on as if it's a big deal and only with religion can the universe make sense. To begin with, no one knows how it all began and to assert logical consistency with one random guess(which is all it can be, there just isn't enough information on the subject to make an informed decision) and logical inconsistency with someone who does not agree with your random guess is just stupid. Secondly, it's not an important issue, it doesn't affect me one way or another how it all began, my problems with your religious views still exist even if a "god" is behind it all, I am 100% confident your religion is false.

So, stop harping on about something that is so completely unimportant and being so self righteous in thinking you've made some big point that is irrelevant to both me and you and is probably incorrect anyway.

Have I hit a nerve? Because not only is my question going unanswered by Connermt, Jesse is correcting my math and you are now telling me that my question is "so completely unimportant" and "irrelevant" so as to not even deserve an answer. This makes me think it might not be so irrelevant as you would like me to believe it is.

It's not that it "doesn't deserve an answer," it's that no one, neither theist nor atheist has any reasonable point to make on the matter. There is simply not enough information regarding the beginning of the universe to make an informed decision as to what happened. For one person to think they have it right and to be offended when someone disagrees with them is just incoherent nonsense.

As far as it being unimportant. How does it affect me? Pleas answer me, how does the beginning of the universe affect me in a personal manner? Whether a God did it or it was chance or it was just a product of the way reality works, how does it affect the way I live my life? If you say, "my religion says this" you know how I will respond, so just assume any one answer to the question may be correct, tell me that it could mean it affects me in multiple different ways, or it could affect me in no way at all, and then you have you answer as to how I concern myself regarding the issue. It is of no personal importance, sure it would be fun to find out but otherwise, it doesn't matter. There's not enough information on the issue to make anyone's hearsay regarding it relevant.

Why else would such a simple question be so desperately avoided? Tell you what, lets forget the whole thing... You're probably right its probably not a good question, I'm sorry I even brought it up.

I'll try to think of a more relevant question than the origin of the universe.

I hope you do. What I should wear to my next job interview is far more relevant, if and when I interview for a new job.

[lao tzu]

Hi Jesse,
Other than correcting my statement, do you have a point you are trying to make? Or are you also unable to answer my question?

Hey I know I have lots of flaws and if thats all we're going to talk about this thread will never get beyond that rudimentary fact.

Sans cere
AdHoc

Hello ad hoc,

Yes, I did have a point to make, and you'll find it contained in my last response. And, to be clear, I did answer your question. To wit, "Yes, it is just you."

Now, with, as you say, numerous respondents explaining to you that what you perceive as a question is merely gibberish as written, or irrelevant to the extent it can be unwound, your responses are appearing more and more McCarthy-esque, "That's just what I'd expect a communist to say." Or as you have it, "This makes me think it might not be so irrelevant as you would like me to believe it is. "

Pray tell, what should we say if we feel your question, to the extent it can be unwound, is irrelevant to atheism in general and to the OP in particular? Nothing at all, perhaps? I think not. The irrelevance of breaking wind in the great outdoors does not translate to the same reaction inside a crowded elevator. These threads are tight spaces. We are going to notice these things.

But, despite what flaws you acknowledge or do not acknowledge, I find you personable and polite. This is why your irrelevant question still manages to gather responses from me. Because of this, I am willing to waste a bit of time that really should be spent elsewhere this weekend leading you back to the topic of the OP.



You're asking if we as atheists believe everything came from nothing. I would venture that you find this question insufficiently serious, well, because it is insufficiently serious, and so have opted for an attempt to phrase your question in the language of mathematics, which would add gravitas if successful, but, as the attempt was not successful, instead adds to a contrary quality.

Colloquially, then, "Put down that equation, sir, and step back carefully, before you hurt yourself again."

Now, as a mathemagician, not a physorcerer, I venture into their domain warily. Still, we should all be aware of the existence of virtual particles. They are the standard counter-example to theistic insistence that something cannot come from nothing. More, they are uncaused, cf. Bell's theorem. Hence, virtual particles are uncaused causes, or uncreated creators, a description theists are wont to ascribe solely to their gods.

Can they, together with similar natural phenomena, account for everything, though? To address what I perceive to be your question more fully, you are not merely asking if something can come from nothing, which, in light of virtual particles, we know occurs, but whether everything can come from nothing. To answer affirmatively, virtual particles, or some similar "something from nothing" are necessary. But, to my knowledge, they are not sufficient to explain the existence of "everything." Yet. And perhaps.

Hence, natural phenomena are necessary but not known to be sufficient. Gods, on the other hand, are sufficient, but not known to be necessary. The raison d'tre of your question is its implication that if everything did not come from nothing, then some god or gods, and preferably your own, must fill the void. Here the theist, as opposed to a Deist or Spinozan, must take on a much more difficult task. They must show intent where common experience shows us vast realms of effect that are clearly unintentional, or, if intentional, can only be attributed to a being working against our interests, e.g., ...

Darryl Van Horne / Witches of Eastwick

"Do you think God knew what he was doing when He created woman. Huh? I really wanna know. Or do you think it was another of His minor mistakes like tidal waves, earthquakes? ... Floods! You think women are like that? S'matter? You don't think God makes mistakes? Of course He does. We all make mistakes. Of course, when we make mistakes they call it evil. When God makes mistakes, they call it ... Nature. So whaddya think? Women? A mistake .... or did he do it to us on purpose!"



Now, with that out of the way, what of the question that, by your standards, must have hit a nerve? The question we're been asked by the OP to discuss?

For 3'5billion years life has existed on this rock we call earth.
For 3.5billion years every single one of those lives has DIED (sans current).
2000yrs ago according to some people everything changed, some don't die.
For the last 2000yrs every living thing has still died.
Which reality are you prepared to accept?
That is the question.

"That is the question."

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

I think radiometric dating is not reliable, because for example it assumes without good knowledge the conditions at the start point.

Also, it is interesting that in you link the material is carbon dated, even though according to the Wikipedia:
Radiocarbon dating (or simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating technique that uses the decay of carbon-14 (14 C) to estimate the age of organic materials, such as wood and leather, up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years Before Present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Dear 1213,

Actually, his link, Earliest evidence of life found: 3.49 billion years ago, did not include a reference to carbon dating, which, as you note, is about the ratios of C-14 to C-12, but rather a reference to the biological signal imputed by the ratio of C-13/C-12. C-13,unlike C-14, is a stable isotope. That is, C-13 doesn't decay, and hence isn't used in dating.

Noffke's claim that she is working with "Microbially Induced Sedimentary Structures" rests on a preference for C-12 over C-13 when biological organisms are incorporating carbon into their cells. I was aware of this feature with respect to isotopes of other elements by virtue of a conversation some years ago with a colleague specializing in marine biology.

As best I recall, his explanation was that incorporation of isotopes in biological organisms proceeds not merely due to the random mixture of purely physical chemistry, but by protein mechanisms, and so the slightly heavier weight of an isotope biases against its inclusion. Heavier isotopes, e.g., C-13 vs. C-12, are more difficult to move into place. So, if a sample has a lower-than-expected C-13/C-12 ratio, we can infer that it was deposited by a biological organism, though of course other physical processes may instead be the cause.

As ever, Jesse

[AdHoc]

Hi Jesse,
Other than correcting my statement, do you have a point you are trying to make? Or are you also unable to answer my question?

Hey I know I have lots of flaws and if thats all we're going to talk about this thread will never get beyond that rudimentary fact.

Sans cere
AdHoc

Hello ad hoc,

Yes, I did have a point to make, and you'll find it contained in my last response. And, to be clear, I did answer your question. To wit, "Yes, it is just you."

Now, with, as you say, numerous respondents explaining to you that what you perceive as a question is merely gibberish as written, or irrelevant to the extent it can be unwound, your responses are appearing more and more McCarthy-esque, "That's just what I'd expect a communist to say." Or as you have it, "This makes me think it might not be so irrelevant as you would like me to believe it is. "

Pray tell, what should we say if we feel your question, to the extent it can be unwound, is irrelevant to atheism in general and to the OP in particular? Nothing at all, perhaps? I think not. The irrelevance of breaking wind in the great outdoors does not translate to the same reaction inside a crowded elevator. These threads are tight spaces. We are going to notice these things.

But, despite what flaws you acknowledge or do not acknowledge, I find you personable and polite. This is why your irrelevant question still manages to gather responses from me. Because of this, I am willing to waste a bit of time that really should be spent elsewhere this weekend leading you back to the topic of the OP.



You're asking if we as atheists believe everything came from nothing. I would venture that you find this question insufficiently serious, well, because it is insufficiently serious, and so have opted for an attempt to phrase your question in the language of mathematics, which would add gravitas if successful, but, as the attempt was not successful, instead adds to a contrary quality.

Colloquially, then, "Put down that equation, sir, and step back carefully, before you hurt yourself again."

Now, as a mathemagician, not a physorcerer, I venture into their domain warily. Still, we should all be aware of the existence of virtual particles. They are the standard counter-example to theistic insistence that something cannot come from nothing. More, they are uncaused, cf. Bell's theorem. Hence, virtual particles are uncaused causes, or uncreated creators, a description theists are wont to ascribe solely to their gods.

Can they, together with similar natural phenomena, account for everything, though? To address what I perceive to be your question more fully, you are not merely asking if something can come from nothing, which, in light of virtual particles, we know occurs, but whether everything can come from nothing. To answer affirmatively, virtual particles, or some similar "something from nothing" are necessary. But, to my knowledge, they are not sufficient to explain the existence of "everything." Yet. And perhaps.

Hence, natural phenomena are necessary but not known to be sufficient. Gods, on the other hand, are sufficient, but not known to be necessary. The raison d'tre of your question is its implication that if everything did not come from nothing, then some god or gods, and preferably your own, must fill the void. Here the theist, as opposed to a Deist or Spinozan, must take on a much more difficult task. They must show intent where common experience shows us vast realms of effect that are clearly unintentional, or, if intentional, can only be attributed to a being working against our interests, e.g., ...

Darryl Van Horne / Witches of Eastwick

"Do you think God knew what he was doing when He created woman. Huh? I really wanna know. Or do you think it was another of His minor mistakes like tidal waves, earthquakes? ... Floods! You think women are like that? S'matter? You don't think God makes mistakes? Of course He does. We all make mistakes. Of course, when we make mistakes they call it evil. When God makes mistakes, they call it ... Nature. So whaddya think? Women? A mistake .... or did he do it to us on purpose!"



Now, with that out of the way, what of the question that, by your standards, must have hit a nerve? The question we're been asked by the OP to discuss?

For 3'5billion years life has existed on this rock we call earth.
For 3.5billion years every single one of those lives has DIED (sans current).
2000yrs ago according to some people everything changed, some don't die.
For the last 2000yrs every living thing has still died.
Which reality are you prepared to accept?
That is the question.

"That is the question."

As ever, Jesse

Thanks for the thoughtful response Jesse,
The quantum world and manifold branes of the multiverse are the usual answer to that question and I appreciate you answering it.

Thank you for the compliment, I sometimes wonder if I'm pushing the envelope with some of my comments but they are always well-intentioned in a spirit of respect.

You're right I haven't been addressing the OP I guess because I don't believe any of us will live forever in this world.

At the end of this I have come away with a sense that maybe atheists and christians have something in common and that's a good thing.

AdHoc

[AdHoc]

Ahhh, ok so we agree atheists believe 0+0+0+0+...= everything

I don't understand the importance or relevance of the issue regarding atheism. Or theism for that matter. It's an issue so many people harp on about but is completely irrelevant to me as an atheist and I don't know why theists consider it to be relevant either. Theism is about so many different things yet when arguing against an atheist who largely believes very few of those things theists just say, "yeah well at least I believe the universe began with something but you believe it begins with nothing." Their religion itself doesn't consider this to be particularly important in their tenements but they harp on as if it's a big deal and only with religion can the universe make sense. To begin with, no one knows how it all began and to assert logical consistency with one random guess(which is all it can be, there just isn't enough information on the subject to make an informed decision) and logical inconsistency with someone who does not agree with your random guess is just stupid. Secondly, it's not an important issue, it doesn't affect me one way or another how it all began, my problems with your religious views still exist even if a "god" is behind it all, I am 100% confident your religion is false.

So, stop harping on about something that is so completely unimportant and being so self righteous in thinking you've made some big point that is irrelevant to both me and you and is probably incorrect anyway.

Have I hit a nerve? Because not only is my question going unanswered by Connermt, Jesse is correcting my math and you are now telling me that my question is "so completely unimportant" and "irrelevant" so as to not even deserve an answer. This makes me think it might not be so irrelevant as you would like me to believe it is.

It's not that it "doesn't deserve an answer," it's that no one, neither theist nor atheist has any reasonable point to make on the matter. There is simply not enough information regarding the beginning of the universe to make an informed decision as to what happened. For one person to think they have it right and to be offended when someone disagrees with them is just incoherent nonsense.

As far as it being unimportant. How does it affect me? Pleas answer me, how does the beginning of the universe affect me in a personal manner? Whether a God did it or it was chance or it was just a product of the way reality works, how does it affect the way I live my life? If you say, "my religion says this" you know how I will respond, so just assume any one answer to the question may be correct, tell me that it could mean it affects me in multiple different ways, or it could affect me in no way at all, and then you have you answer as to how I concern myself regarding the issue. It is of no personal importance, sure it would be fun to find out but otherwise, it doesn't matter. There's not enough information on the issue to make anyone's hearsay regarding it relevant.

I think you got me there. It's the kind of question that won't affect your day to day life but strikes you suddenly when you're sitting by a campfire and your eyes follow the sparks flying upwards into the starry sky. There are others too.

Why else would such a simple question be so desperately avoided? Tell you what, lets forget the whole thing... You're probably right its probably not a good question, I'm sorry I even brought it up.

I'll try to think of a more relevant question than the origin of the universe.

I hope you do. What I should wear to my next job interview is far more relevant, if and when I interview for a new job.

Haha ok here goes... Do you enjoy your current job? If not then ask yourself these three questions: What does the world need? What do you do really well? What do you enjoy doing? By completing a venn diagram with the answer to those three questions in the three circles look to the place where those three circles intersect for your next job.

I think you'll be alright wearing whatever your comfortable wearing as long as its clean but maybe don't wear a Hello Kitty T-shirt.

You know what that might be cool... Go ahead and rock the Hello Kitty t-shirt they'll see you as extremely confident.