Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism...

[ToadBrother]

No physical theory states that the universe "just happened". The big bang theory simply talks about the universe since some starting point, prior to which it makes no claims. There are plenty of other theories which attempt to explain what could have been happening in a wider context, such as m-theory. We do not yet have enough information to conclude which (if any) of these theories could be correct, but acquiring such information in the future is not impossible. Again, this is a matter of scientific discovery.

An excellent point. All Big Bang cosmology says is that the observable universe was once very hot and very dense, and then began to expand and cool (obviously it says considerably more than that, but the core of the theory). Physicists will often wax poetic, talking about "moment of creation" and such, and from the limited perspective of the breaking of symmetry, formation of matter, etc., it's not an outrageous statement. But to carry that further is unwarranted without at least some evidence. Maybe, once we solve quantum gravity and some other gaping holes, we may be able to looking into superstrings, brane theory and the like and get some answers, but for now, the Big Bang creates an effective event horizon. If there was a before, we can know nothing about it.

[August1991]

What do you mean by a "special place"? Probability and randomness underlie quantum mechanics. Determinism underlies classical mechanics, which is the set of the laws of physics that is relevant to most humans on a daily basis. Why are the laws the way they are? Well, we have answers for some of them, and have not yet found answers for others. This is a matter of scientific pursuit not of faith.[

Probability and randomness play a greater role than merely quantum mechanics; they are at the heart of the direction of time.

No physical theory states that the universe "just happened". The big bang theory simply talks about the universe since some starting point, prior to which it makes no claims. There are plenty of other theories which attempt to explain what could have been happening in a wider context, such as m-theory. We do not yet have enough information to conclude which (if any) of these theories could be correct, but acquiring such information in the future is not impossible. Again, this is a matter of scientific discovery.

You make a good point here - if the debate is about the existence of a "Prime Mover".

Based on current observations, something apparently happened about 15 billion years ago or so. What existed before then, or if time at that instant was a limit, we don't know. While these beg good questions (of the Prime Mover variety), I was marvelling rather at the laws/rules. Where in God's name did these come from?

You speak of quantum mechanics and relativity as if they are natural - without saying where this naturalness came from. It is as if the quantum mechanics "just happened".

As for consciousness, it is an emergent property of sufficiently complex neural networks.

Whatever.

-----

I understand perfectly well that we are having this conversation in the context of Western life in the early 21st century and as usual, religious questions have a political context. An atheist today is someone who typically wants to show their opposition to Christian fundamentalists. (I hesitate to say "Western" atheist but in fact, there is no other kind. Outside of large North American cities and Western Europe, there are few atheists.)

When Richard Dawkins claims that God doesn't exist, I tend to think that he is making a statement about his opinion of current politics. He is not really examining God's existence. I would say the same of Toadbrother, but even moreso.

We individualists in the West are fortunate to live in the here and now where we can enjoy life. Our brief touches with existence - when we wonder about it - come typically very late in life.

[ToadBrother]

When Richard Dawkins claims that God doesn't exist, I tend to think that he is making a statement about his opinion of current politics. He is not really examining God's existence. I would say the same of Toadbrother, but even moreso.

I can't speak for Dawkins. I can speak for myself. My position has nothing to do with politics whatsoever. Do you feel some ingrained need to make atheism seem some sort of fad?

[August1991]

Physicists will often wax poetic, talking about "moment of creation" and such, and from the limited perspective of the breaking of symmetry, formation of matter, etc., it's not an outrageous statement. But to carry that further is unwarranted without at least some evidence.

Physicists (and economists) too often rely on bad metaphors. So to indulge the habit, I think the "waxing poetic" comes in part from taking the laws they know and understand and then figuring out how to make them work when the mass of the universe is an area the size of my kitchen. To make the laws work, strange things happen - and yet the laws still apply.

But TB, the existence of these so-called rules of the universe begs the question: did they "just happen"? And in a way that would work 15 billion years later?

----

I know that you will just hate this anecdote but I am reminded of Reagan's answer to atheists: "Imagine you see a table in a restaurant filled with delicious food. Who would question the existence of a chef?"

[ToadBrother]

But TB, the existence of these so-called rules of the universe begs the question: did they "just happen"? And in a way that would work 15 billion years later?

I'll answer, though I'm not sure what the second question tends to. The answer, in short order, is that we don't know how physical laws behave in the presumed conditions that prevailed in the opening moments of the Big Bang. We're talking about energy levels, density and temperatures of incredible extremes. We don't know if, say, we rewound the tape, so to speak, that we would end up with a universe like ours. There are pretty deep questions far beyond current physics to answer. Is the universe dominated by the uncertainty of QM, or is it truly deterministic? Are the laws that we see inevitable, or could things come out differently if started again? We don't know that either. Because an enormous amount of what went on in the earliest phase happened at extreme energy levels, the only way we can really observe is to make bigger and bigger particle accelerators to reproduce the kinds of temperatures involved at the early epoch.

I guess that's a long-winded way of saying "We don't know". We know a good deal about the Big Bang, about when matter formed, or how the large scale structure was formed by quantum fluctuations very early on when gravity was an insignificant force. But not every question is answered, and it's always possible that not every question will. There are interesting mathematical models like brane theory which hint at a far greater cosmos than we have imagined before, but a lot of this is so heavily dependent on uniting GR and QM, and in particular in finding a quantum solution to gravity that that bit of "mundane" housekeeping will have to be finished. Even then, testing hypothetical constructs like superstrings and folded dimensions will require a whole new generation of accelerators far beyond our technical capacity.

[August1991]

The answer, in short order, is that we don't know how physical laws behave in the presumed conditions that prevailed in the opening moments of the Big Bang. We're talking about energy levels, density and temperatures of incredible extremes. We don't know if, say, we rewound the tape, so to speak, that we would end up with a universe like ours. There are pretty deep questions far beyond current physics to answer. Is the universe dominated by the uncertainty of QM, or is it truly deterministic? Are the laws that we see inevitable, or could things come out differently if started again? We don't know that either.

...

There are interesting mathematical models like brane theory which hint at a far greater cosmos than we have imagined before, but a lot of this is so heavily dependent on uniting GR and QM, and in particular in finding a quantum solution to gravity that that bit of "mundane" housekeeping will have to be finished. Even then, testing hypothetical constructs like superstrings and folded dimensions will require a whole new generation of accelerators far beyond our technical capacity.

I agree that current theories of physics lead to strange conclusions about the first moments of the universe.

But ToadBrother, I am amazed about simpler other "theories". I am amazed that, for example, if you add 2 and 11, you get 13.

This simple addition has always been true, and will always be true. It was true at the origin of our universe and it is true at this moment in the far galaxies of our universe.

Is 2+11=13 also true in any another universe? If so, why? Perhaps, as you say, this addition "just happened" to be true - in our universe, and possibly in the others.

But why? Why should 2+11 always give 13? Why not 14, or 12 - if only sometimes, given the importance of probability?

Edited July 16, 2010 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

I agree that current theories of physics lead to strange conclusions about the first moments of the universe.

But ToadBrother, I am amazed about simpler other "theories". I am amazed that, for example, if you add 2 and 11, you get 13.

This simple addition has always been true, and will always be true. It was true at the origin of our universe and it is true at this moment in the far galaxies of our universe.

Is 2+11=13 also true in any another universe? If so, why? Perhaps, as you say, this addition "just happened" to be true - in our universe, and possibly in the others.

But why? Why should 2+11 always give 13? Why not 14, or 12 - if only sometimes, given the sof probability?

You're mixing too entirely different systems here. No matter what universe you are in, 2+2 will always equal 4. Logic and mathematics don't change based on physical laws. Physical laws can be explained by mathematics, but are not dependent upon them.

[Sir Bandelot]

You're mixing too entirely different systems here. No matter what universe you are in, 2+2 will always equal 4. Logic and mathematics don't change based on physical laws. Physical laws can be explained by mathematics, but are not dependent upon them.

I would not be too sure about that because, it's possible that at relativistic velocities, and in certain regions of the universe where gravity dominates, 2 + 2 actually equals 3.99999999999. Believing its always 4 is just a mathematical abstraction. According to the second law of thermodynamics there has to be a slight loss or degradation in every transaction. The preservation of absolute values regardless of the number of transactions is merely an illusion.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Bonam]

I would not be too sure about that because, it's possible that at relativistic velocities, and in certain regions of the universe where gravity dominates, 2 + 2 actually equals 3.99999999999. Believing its always 4 is just a mathematical abstraction. According to the second law of thermodynamics there has to be a slight loss or degradation in every transaction. The preservation of absolute values regardless of the number of transactions is merely an illusion.

Umm, the way you phrase it it is kinda nonsense, but what really matters is what you are adding.

In terms of relativity, a few things do indeed change this way. For example, two objects approaching each other, each at 0.2c, do not have a combined closing velocity of 0.4c.

But this is not because the rules of math have changed. 2+2 still equals 4. It is just that you are no longer doing an operation of simple addition, you are instead using a different equation to combine those two velocities.

[ToadBrother]

I would not be too sure about that because, it's possible that at relativistic velocities, and in certain regions of the universe where gravity dominates, 2 + 2 actually equals 3.99999999999. Believing its always 4 is just a mathematical abstraction. According to the second law of thermodynamics there has to be a slight loss or degradation in every transaction. The preservation of absolute values regardless of the number of transactions is merely an illusion.

There ought to be an award for the most ludicrous interpretation of 2LoT. At any rate, no, logic and mathematics are not effected by thermodynamics. Mathematics and logic are descriptive, not proscriptive, and certainly not proscripted.

Edited July 16, 2010 by ToadBrother

[GostHacked]

2+2=4 holds true in our universe. It could be different in another universe that has completely different scientific constants. In theory other universes may not even be recognizable by us. But parallel or other universes is simply a hypothesis at this time. We have yet to explore a good portion of our own solar system, let alone the vastness of this universe we live in.

We, along with everything else on this planet are carbon based. It's possible that there are other beings out there that are not carbon based, possible silicone based. Who knows. Does this mean we need to make up conclusions (aka a god did it) for stuff we have no clue about yet? My answer is no. I take comfort in not knowing instead of making stuff up.

[ToadBrother]

2+2=4 holds true in our universe. It could be different in another universe that has completely different scientific constants. In theory other universes may not even be recognizable by us. But parallel or other universes is simply a hypothesis at this time. We have yet to explore a good portion of our own solar system, let alone the vastness of this universe we live in.

No no no no no no no no!

Look, mathematics is an internally consistent descriptive language, in essence. It relies upon no external aspect. That's why the notion of proof in mathematics is absolute, whereas in science it is only provisional.

No matter where you go the sum of 1 and 1 will always equal 2, the square root of 16 of will always be 4, and so on and so forth. Obviously the laws of physics in other universes (if they exist or if the concept is even meaningful) will be different, and the mathematical models necessary to describe them will not be the same, but the mathematics itself remains the same.

[GostHacked]

No no no no no no no no!

Look, mathematics is an internally consistent descriptive language, in essence. It relies upon no external aspect. That's why the notion of proof in mathematics is absolute, whereas in science it is only provisional.

No matter where you go the sum of 1 and 1 will always equal 2, the square root of 16 of will always be 4, and so on and so forth. Obviously the laws of physics in other universes (if they exist or if the concept is even meaningful) will be different, and the mathematical models necessary to describe them will not be the same, but the mathematics itself remains the same.

Well, you and I can only speculate what 2+2=? in other universes. Since this is the only one we know, we can only base it on our experiences in this universe. It could be different, which is a possibility, because people will even laugh at the notion of other universes and give you the NO no no no no no no no .....

[ToadBrother]

Well, you and I can only speculate what 2+2=? in other universes. Since this is the only one we know, we can only base it on our experiences in this universe. It could be different, which is a possibility, because people will even laugh at the notion of other universes and give you the NO no no no no no no no .....

Then I don't think you really understand what mathematics is. Let's put it this way, you travel to another universe. The English you speak wouldn't change. It might be utterly useless, might be utterly incapable of describing what you see, but English is essentially a construct, just like mathematics.

[eyeball]

However things are tallied up in other universes the one constant we can probably count on is that there'll be no shortage of theists, atheists and agnostics to argue about it.

I have to agree though, despite the physical differences that might exist between what you add or subtract etc, how you count or add up, say...the number of angels on the head of a pin, two angels plus two angels will still equal four angels no matter where, when, who, what, where or even why you are.

[GostHacked]

Then I don't think you really understand what mathematics is. Let's put it this way, you travel to another universe. The English you speak wouldn't change. It might be utterly useless, might be utterly incapable of describing what you see, but English is essentially a construct, just like mathematics.

I understand that mathematics is universal, meaning to our universe. We have no idea how other probable/possible/hypothetical universes operate. Your premise does work in our own universe, like traveling to another planet in another galaxy that hosts another species, I would tend to agree that the mathematics would be the same. They live within the same physical/mathematical laws we do.

Other universes simply may not operate in this fashion. And since we have not discovered any other universe and travel to it to discover it's workings, we can only speculate.

If you KNOW this, then that is kind in line with anyone who fancies a sky god. It's a belief. We live with many unknowns. Rather than make myself look like an idiot, I will state again 'I don't know', which begs the question, 'How do we confirm/deny the hypothesis.

[ToadBrother]

I understand that mathematics is universal, meaning to our universe. We have no idea how other probable/possible/hypothetical universes operate. Your premise does work in our own universe, like traveling to another planet in another galaxy that hosts another species, I would tend to agree that the mathematics would be the same. They live within the same physical/mathematical laws we do.

Other universes simply may not operate in this fashion. And since we have not discovered any other universe and travel to it to discover it's workings, we can only speculate.

If you KNOW this, then that is kind in line with anyone who fancies a sky god. It's a belief. We live with many unknowns. Rather than make myself look like an idiot, I will state again 'I don't know', which begs the question, 'How do we confirm/deny the hypothesis.

You're problem seems to be that you think that mathematics is proscripted, that it is somehow reliant upon some facet of our universe. It isn't. It is, in a way, a universe entirely its own. That is why it can be used to model aspects of our universe, or model aspects of universes that, so far as we know, don't exist at all.

[bloodyminded]

My answer may not be any closer to to the truth, or may in fact be wrong, but at least it follows a consistent logic.

This sums it up nicely.

It's not that I consider the existence of God to be an impossibility. I simply see no reason to suppose that he exists. And I'm not "feeling it" the way that believers suppose that they do. So God hasn't spoken to me in the way that people feel he speaks to them.

Their answer would be (in fact, their answer is) that He does speak to me, but that I refuse to listen. And, well, again, such a thing is not impossible...but that is pure supposition on their part.

[bloodyminded]

Physicists (and economists) too often rely on bad metaphors. So to indulge the habit, I think the "waxing poetic" comes in part from taking the laws they know and understand and then figuring out how to make them work when the mass of the universe is an area the size of my kitchen. To make the laws work, strange things happen - and yet the laws still apply.

But TB, the existence of these so-called rules of the universe begs the question: did they "just happen"? And in a way that would work 15 billion years later?

----

I know that you will just hate this anecdote but I am reminded of Reagan's answer to atheists: "Imagine you see a table in a restaurant filled with delicious food. Who would question the existence of a chef?"

What Reagan (who was not an especially insightful or intelligent man, not by any knowledge we have of him) failed to understand was that the chef did not create the food on the table. Nor is he responsible for an entire universe of which the food is but a part...including the fact that said food is by definition rotting before our eyes.

Edited July 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[shelphs]

What do they mean ? Which do you believe in ? Why ?

Agnosticism

the belief that it's impossible to know if a God or Gods exists; that ultimate knowledge is unattainable.

Atheism

the belief that no God or Gods exist

Theism

the belief that a God or Gods do exist

Deism

the belief in an all-knowing creator that is indifferent and unconnected to all religions

[ToadBrother]

Deism

the belief in an all-knowing creator that is indifferent and unconnected to all religions

I disagree with the "all-knowing" part in that.

[Michael Hardner]

Agnosticism

the belief that it's impossible to know if a God or Gods exists; that ultimate knowledge is unattainable.

Atheism

the belief that no God or Gods exist

Theism

the belief that a God or Gods do exist

Deism

the belief in an all-knowing creator that is indifferent and unconnected to all religions

I agree with your definition of Atheism, but many think that it's "no belief in God or Gods"

[bloodyminded]

I agree with your definition of Atheism, but many think that it's "no belief in God or Gods"

Yes, an important distinction...and as many have said (no doubt accurately) there are atheists in both these camps.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, an important distinction...and as many have said (no doubt accurately) there are atheists in both these camps.

I consider myself a Christian agnostic (Christian in philosophy, and agnostic according to the above definition) but have been told by some that I'm really an Atheist.

And there's my example of a lady friend who believed that we are surrounded by pagan spirits... and that she herself was an atheist...

[ToadBrother]

I agree with your definition of Atheism, but many think that it's "no belief in God or Gods"

It's a subtle but important distinction. Disbelief is, in itself, an active form of belief. I prefer to say of myself that I lack a belief in gods.