John Clayton

[Cris]

Jan,

Matter, on its own is bereft of any organizing capabilities, its only tendency is to increase disorder.

That is not true. Matter and energy tend to create structure because of the 4 forces.

According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the entropy of an isolated system always increases.

You are assuming a steady flow from order to disorder, but the universe has significant clumps of matter and energy where order is increasing, e.g. the earth and life. Eventually though when all energy has evenly dissipated, then the universe will perhaps achieve a homogenous staleness of disorder.

How is it that this system is so precisely organised?

The actions of the 4 forces again.

Because there is a consciousness behind it, and when we think of consciousness, we think of life. This consciousness, i refer to as God.

Ok, but that is just one arbitrary speculation out of many others, and where such a complex being is not needed.

Can you point out any form or lump of matter that can organise itself. Preferably something that i can observe now, like a stone or an ironing board.

You are a such a lump of matter. You began at conception with two simple cells and then increased in order to produce you.

Of course this ultimate apparent end to the universe is being questioned yet again by leading scientists http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2346907.stm The mystery of dark energy is fueling new speculation that a big collapse now seems a likely outcome of the universe.

Each galaxy appears to have black holes and if we imagine these entities more like giant vacuum cleaners consuming all matter and energy in their path then as they attract each other and merge together then the result seems like a big collapse, and presumably followed by another big bang, with entropy reset to zero each time.

 

[Raithere]

Order from chaos: a natural process

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Do you exist, or not?

Are you asking me what I believe or what I can prove? There is no absolute logical proof of what if anything is existent. As Chuang Tzu realized; "Was I before a man who dreamt about being a butterfly, or am I now a butterfly who dreams about being a man?" Which are you Jan; The butterfly or the man? Can you prove it?

When it comes down to it we act as if reality is congruent with our perception, that existence is real, simply out of expediency. The alternative allows no basis for either thought or action. Indeed, I share with you an operating premise that indeed existence is real and my perceptions are reasonably congruent with reality; however, is it but a necessary presumption.

You're sarcasm is a waste of time. I know i exist and if you think i'm delusional, then that is your business.

I don't think you're delusional; I think you're being close-minded, presumptuous, and deliberately ignorant of scientific fact or millennia of philosophical thought. You seem to think that if you have decided something that it simply must be true and no other possibilities are even worth consideration. Why then bother with discussion or debate?

There is evidence. Matter, on its own is bereft of any organizing capabilities, its only tendency is to increase disorder. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the entropy of an isolated system always increases.

Quite wrong; you misunderstand entropy (as does Mr. Clayton). In fact, it is entropy that drives order and organization as energy seeks the most efficient path towards equilibrium.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/PRINCI_SELF-.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-01/msg0021591.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SELFORG.html
http://www.entropylaw.com/entropyproduction.html

Indeed, Professor Prigogine was given a Nobel Prize for his work on the problem:
http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/1977/press.html

How is it that this system is so precisely organised?
Because there is a consciousness behind it, and when we think of consciousness, we think of life. This consciousness, i refer to as God.

Sorry but that's a syllogistic fallacy. Order is very apparent in nature; there is no reason to presume an intelligent, magical force is the cause.

Can you point out any form or lump of matter that can organise itself. Preferably something that i can observe now, like a stone or an ironing board.

Sure, take a glass of water and stir in a bunch of salt or sugar. Now set it on a sunny window-sill for a few days (or put it in the oven on low heat for an hour or two). Presto chango! Ordered crystals from a disordered solution. It must be magic!

Or try this one: Take a cup of very hot coffee and put a few drops of cream in it. At first the cream will be disorganized and chaotic but if you leave the cup undisturbed you will eventually see an organized pattern emerge, they are known as convection cells. (Note: This experiment can be a bit tricky as the cream sometimes dissipates throughout the coffee before the convection-cells become apparent).

Sorry, I'd like to give you an example more on the order of an ironing-board but unless you have a few billion years to wait the experiment simply takes too long and is random enough that we might end up with a surf-board instead.

~Raithere

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

What was invalid about his scientific perspective?

I gave a few examples in my initial post. Cris and Raithere have also answered this question in much more detail.

I wouldn't have thought you needed any, as "you knew" his arguments were not valid.

I never said I "knew" his arguments were not valid. This is what I said. "From what I know about science, it seemed that Clayton's arguments were not valid. I wanted to know if I was wrong about anything, or if he had a valid point somewhere in his argument.

What would constitute a good argument, in your eyes/ears?

I would consider an argument that contains no factual errors or logical fallacies and has a valid conclusion to be a good argument. If you have an argument that fits that description, I would be happy to look at it.

Then put aside what you think you know and start again. You're young enough.

If you can show me that my knowledge if false, then please enlighten me. I will always be willing to learn.

How did this realization come to you?
What would you like to know?

I want to know everything. However, I am sure that isn't going to happen. Just because I want something, doesn't mean I should expect it.

I don't think you should have either, especially as you do not know him, nor have you dialogued with him. You should look into his claims before dismissing them (if you are sincerely looking for truth).

What makes you think I haven't looked into his claims?

There are posters here who feel that way, it is not uncommon. I think if he was an atheist, you wouldn't feel the same way. Maybe I'm wrong, but from my experience of arguing with atheists on this board, I don't think so.

You are wrong, but if you would like to think that your accusation is true go ahead.

Why wouldn't he understand science, especially if he studied it? Your statement is irrational.

Why is it irrational? His statements show a lack of comprehension. Anyone that thinks science has the answer to everything, hasn't studied science or hasn't learned very well.

Will you JUST listen to yourself?

I know more about science than John Clayton. That isn't saying much.

Because you had no reason to call him a "stupid old man," even if you did not agree with him. Plus, now you realize you shouldn't have, so you're original statement was irrational and unreasonable, and looking at the subject matter, it is easy to see why.

How do you know I just didn't want to ridicule him? There are many other possibilities besides him making me angry and you can't read my mind.

Puh-leaze!!!

Love

Jan Ardena.

Thanks for proving my point. By the way you spelled atheist wrong every time and had many other spelling and grammatical errors. I took the time to fix them all.

 

[Redoubtable]

Even I can produce better justification of God's existence than that.

John Clayton, or whoever wrote that farcical flotsam, is hereby an incompetent fool.

I am not going to look at this thread again . . . so all of you would-be provocateurs, firebrands, and fomenters may now commence in denouncing me with all your fathomless vitriol and wit . . .

 

[Jan Ardena]

Re: Order from chaos: a natural process

Originally posted by Raithere
Are you asking me what I believe or what I can prove?

No i am asking you if you exist.

As Chuang Tzu realized; "Was I before a man who dreamt about being a butterfly, or am I now a butterfly who dreams about being a man?"

Why stop at butterfly or man?

Which are you Jan; The butterfly or the man? Can you prove it?

I am a butterfly, because i have big coloured wings.

I don't think you're delusional; I think you're being close-minded, presumptuous, and deliberately ignorant of scientific fact or millennia of philosophical thought.

With regard to whether or not i exist, where is the scientific fact that suggests i am closed minded for believing that i exist?

You seem to think that if you have decided something that it simply must be true and no other possibilities are even worth consideration.

No, i believe i exist. Prove to me i don't, then you may have a point, otherwise you are spouting nonsense drivel.

Why then bother with discussion or debate?

Why do you bother with discussion or debate, you may not even exist.

Sure, take a glass of water and stir in a bunch of salt or sugar. Now set it on a sunny window-sill for a few days (or put it in the oven on low heat for an hour or two). Presto chango! Ordered crystals from a disordered solution. It must be magic!

Where did the glass come from? How did it come to have water in it? Does it set on a window-sill by itself? Does the oven know to set itself at a low tempreture? Can you see where I’m going with this line of questioning?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Raithere]

Re: Re: Order from chaos: a natural process

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
No i am asking you if you exist.

I already answered your question.

Why stop at butterfly or man?

Its called an example.

With regard to whether or not i exist, where is the scientific fact that suggests i am closed minded for believing that i exist?

I write well enough that most people can tell whether I am giving an opinion or stating a fact. The phrase "I think", generally indicates that one is stating an opinion. Such as; I think you are simply dodging my questions and the issues now rather that actually putting any effort into formulating a meaningful response.

No, i believe i exist. Prove to me i don't, then you may have a point, otherwise you are spouting nonsense drivel.

When did I assert that you don't exist? Are you even capable of perceiving your own hypocrisy?

Why do you bother with discussion or debate, you may not even exist.

I labor under the presumption of my own existence. The alternative is impractical.

Can you see where I’m going with this line of questioning?

Indeed. But the anthropic argument is not logically valid. It's reasoned backwards.

You asked for an example of order arising from disorder without intelligent intervention that you could see yourself. I gave you two examples. Where the components came from is irrelevant to the experiments. In both situations one creates a disordered state that that becomes ordered though natural laws alone. If you wish to make a leap-of-faith to the conclusion that God must have created the laws that govern this action, so be it, but I have proven my point that order does indeed arise naturally. No miracles were needed.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield

I gave a few examples in my initial post. Cris and Raithere have also answered this question in much more detail.

You haven’t and neither have they.

I would consider an argument that contains no factual errors or logical fallacies and has a valid conclusion to be a good argument. If you have an argument that fits that description, I would be happy to look at it.

So in other words an argument that carried on from what you think you know?

If you can show me that my knowledge if false, then please enlighten me. I will always be willing to learn.

If your knowledge is false, then you should already know.

What makes you think I haven't looked into his claims?

For one, you have made wild accusations and then retracted them. This shows you are being (among other things) negativly emotional. How could have looked into his case with any serious degree of objectivity?

You are wrong, but if you would like to think that your accusation is true go ahead.

It wasn’t really an accusation, more of an observation, and even then it was speculation.

Why is it irrational? His statements show a lack of comprehension.

One example;

“All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day.”

One implication of Einsteins general theory of relativity was the idea that the universe could not be static, it is either expanding or contracting. It has been proven since, that galaxies are moving further away due to the observation of spectrum of light emitted by individual stars, therefore expanding. Edwin Hubble remarked; “Even the size of a red shift of a galaxy is not random, but is directly proportional to the distance of the galaxy from us.”
So where is his comprehension wrong?

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!/

This is most probably his own inferance, but it stands to reason. He may be wrong, he may be right, but who knows?

Anyone that thinks science has the answer to everything, hasn't studied science or hasn't learned very well

In a sense, science does have the answer to everything, it just depends on what you term "science."

more about science than John Clayton. That isn't saying much.

I am not saying you do not know more, but that is a silly statement.

How do you know I just didn't want to ridicule him? There are many other possibilities besides him making me angry and you can't read my mind.

Of course you are correct, I cannot read your mind, but you did appear to be pissed off (imho), and I was just playing.

Thanks for proving my point.

Another breakthrough in science!
Keep it up kid you’ll be a fine scientist some day.

By the way you spelled atheist wrong every time and had many other spelling and grammatical errors. I took the time to fix them all.

I-a tank-a you.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[hshatfield]

You haven't and neither have they.

It isn't our faults that you don't understand.

So in other words an argument that carried on from what you think you know?

That is not what I said. Read it again. The argument could very well contain something that I didn't know.

If your knowledge is false, then you should already know.

First I need to correct myself. If my knowledge is false it isn't knowledge. Anyway, what you said still makes no sense. If I am wrong I should know I am wrong? Please, tell me how I am wrong.

For one, you have made wild accusations and then retracted them. This shows you are being (among other things) negatively emotional. How could have looked into his case with any serious degree of objectivity?

The "wild accusations" I made were personal insults, and not counter arguments. I still have not retracted my statement that he does not understand singularity. He also misrepresents the position of atheists. This is very odd for someone who used to be one.

It wasn't really an accusation, more of an observation, and even then it was speculation.

Fine, but its still wrong.

One example;

“All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day.”

One implication of Einstein's general theory of relativity was the idea that the universe could not be static, it is either expanding or contracting. It has been proven since, that galaxies are moving further away due to the observation of spectrum of light emitted by individual stars, therefore expanding. Edwin Hubble remarked; “Even the size of a red shift of a galaxy is not random, but is directly proportional to the distance of the galaxy from us.”
So where is his comprehension wrong?

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!/

This is most probably his own inference, but it stands to reason. He may be wrong, he may be right, but who knows?

What is your point? First of all, that is not his own inference. That idea has been around for quite some time. Read on further. He later talks about the big bang coming from empty space. He also tries to apply the current laws of physics to singularity. He is wrong on both, and many other, points.

In a sense, science does have the answer to everything, it just depends on what you term "science."

In what sense are you talking about?

I am not saying you do not know more, but that is a silly statement.

Why?

Of course you are correct, I cannot read your mind, but you did appear to be pissed off (imho), and I was just playing.

Fine, think what you want.

Another breakthrough in science!
Keep it up kid you'll be a fine scientist some day.

What does that have to do with science?

I-a tank-a you.

Your welcome.

 

[hshatfield]

Does anyone think there is any point in me continuing this discussion with Jan? This is obviously a very ignorant person with no intention of constructive conversation or debate.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by JDawg
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Tell me, Jan, how someone like you, who believes in God, can reprimand anyone for not being objective?

Easy! Just read what they say.

Theists are never objective, because if they were, they would see their flaw in blind faith.

That is if they have blind faith.

Jan, how do you see that all roads lead to an intelligent creator?

There are quite a few things, but I’ll start with a simple observation. Life comes from life.

Raithere covered it already, so I won't get into it, but the fact is, there is more than one option here.

Raithere has covered nothing.
We either had a beginning or we didn’t. What other credible option is there?

There is a reason for that...

Show me a scientist who believes in God and I will show you a man who lives in an oxymoron. There is no proof that God exists………

First of all, modern science is not (or should not be) in the business of proving or dis-proving the existence of God, by the definition of God.
Modern science is, observing and experimenting with phenomena, its concern is with the materials and functions of the “physical” universe. By all definitions, it should not matter to a scientist, in the course of his labour, whether God exists or not, because God cannot be observed as “physical phenomena,” and as you rightly said, proof of His existence cannot be made. But from past and present people from all walks of life, some brilliant some not have expressed beliefs in God, or considered that there may be a god, these include a host of scientists. So I conclude that modern scientific methods are inadequate and insufficient in coming up with proof of the existence of God.

…..nor is there any for the realm in which he would need to exist in.

Firstly, where is the question of need?
Secondly, in order to be sure of your statement, you need to know the origin of the universe(s), which you don’t.

We have only evidence that contradicts the teachings of scripture, yet nothing supporting it.

Well lets look at the expanding universe which has been observed in the past few years.

Qur’an (51.47)

“The heaven. We have built it with power, indeed we are expanding it.”

The term “heaven” is a translation of the arabic word sama which means “the extra-terrestrial world. ‘We are expanding it’ is the translation of the plural present participle musi’una of the verb anus’a meaning ‘to make wider, more spacious, to extend to expand’.
As I said before, scientists can describe this activity in physical terms, but they cannot tell us why or how.

believe ignorance is a prerequisite for theism, but I firmly believe that there has to be a serious lacking in common sense.

Why?

a scientist may believe in God, but it's becuase he hasn't applied any of the knowledge he has to the question of God.

Maybe he has, but understands the knowledge to be insuficient.

He hasn't studied any religion, or looked past what the preacher at church tells him to.

And you know this as fact do you?

Jenyar is a great example of this. Jenyar isn't stupid, but he didn't even know the significance of the number 7 in ancient Hebrew.

What does knowing this have to do with believing in God.

No doubt this is the same for you, Jan.

Well, that’s something you have to find out.

but I can promise you that you have never objectively put your knowledge (if any) of science against your faith.

BEWARE OF FALSE PROMISES!!!!!!

Again, I can't speak for your faith,

No you can’t.

You're not stupid, I'm sure, but you lack common sense, or refuse to see things objectively. I would put every cent I've ever earned in my life on it.

I’m not a gambler, but you are most welcome to put me to the test.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by hshatfield

It isn't our faults that you don't understand.

I understand perfectly well. I think the lack of understanding is coming from yourself.

The argument could very well contain something that I didn't know.

It has. But you choose not to see it.

If I am wrong I should know I am wrong? Please, tell me how I am wrong.

If you are wrong, but are convinced you are right, it is very hard to know that you are wrong.
My concern is not with whether you are right or wrong, but your ability to throw something aside because it does not fall within you particular paradigm.

The "wild accusations" I made were personal insults, and not counter arguments.

This is why they were wild.

I still have not retracted my statement that he does not understand singularity.

Could you please explain why you think he does not understand singularity?

He also misrepresents the position of atheists.

Think about it. If he was an atheist (which is not inconceivable), and he remembers how he felt and acted, then how could he misrepresent them, unless deliberately doing so. I would say he has firsthand knowledge due to his experience.

Fine, but its still wrong.

That’s okay.

What is your point? First of all, that is not his own inference. That idea has been around for quite some time. Read on further.

Then I can take it that the idea from which his expression came, is comprehensively correct, despite your assertions that he lacks comprehension in scientific matters?

He later talks about the big bang coming from empty space. He also tries to apply the current laws of physics to singularity. He is wrong on both, and many other, points.

And what is your point?

In what sense are you talking about?

In the sense that “science” means knowledge. Knowledge is not only to be found via scientific observation or experiment, even though some would disagree.

Why?

A person who “knows” does not boast, it is among other things, distateful and repugnant, in fact they are more inclined to say that the more one knows, the more you realise you don’t know. I believe its called "humility."

What does that have to do with science?

Lighten up! I was joking. You said your point was “proven.”

Ah well! I thought it was funny anyway.

Does anyone think there is any point in me continuing this discussion with Jan? This is obviously a very ignorant person with no intention of constructive conversation or debate.

Looking for help eh?
If you don’t want to dialogue, just say so, there’s no need to go to such drastic measures.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Nasor]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
You haven’t and neither have they.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with thermodynamic would realize that his statements about the 2nd law are factually incorrect. Cris already explained most of this in detail.

Can you point out any form or lump of matter that can organise itself. Preferably something that i can observe now, like a stone or an ironing board.

Put a glass of water in your freezer. Come back in half an hour or so and watch in fascination as the water molecules spontaneously organize themselves into a hexagonal crystal lattice that propagates its self throughout the glass.

 

[hshatfield]

Jan,

I understand perfectly well. I think the lack of understanding is coming from yourself.

No, it is clear that you don't understand. You discussion with Cris and Raithere shows that you don't even grasp basic science.

It has. But you choose not to see it.

Could you give some examples?

If you are wrong, but are convinced you are right, it is very hard to know that you are wrong.
My concern is not with whether you are right or wrong, but your ability to throw something aside because it does not fall within you particular paradigm.

What have I thrown aside?

This is why they were wild.

Ok.

Could you please explain why you think he does not understand singularity?

I already did. "He later talks about the big bang coming from empty space. He also tries to apply the current laws of physics to singularity. He is wrong on both, and many other, points."

Think about it. If he was an atheist (which is not inconceivable), and he remembers how he felt and acted, then how could he misrepresent them, unless deliberately doing so. I would say he has firsthand knowledge due to his experience.

Just because he felt that way doesn't mean all other atheists do. Not all atheists think that matter is eternal. In some of his other articles he say things like atheists hate the big bang because it presupposes a creator. Sorry, but that is a load of crap.

Then I can take it that the idea from which his expression came, is comprehensively correct, despite your assertions that he lacks comprehension in scientific matters?

Just because he lacks comprehension in scientific matters doesn't mean that everything he says will be wrong.

And what is your point?

He is wrong. I thought the point was clear enough.

In the sense that “science” means knowledge. Knowledge is not only to be found via scientific observation or experiment, even though some would disagree.

Science is the search for knowledge. We have not and perhaps never will obtain all knowledge.

A person who “knows” does not boast, it is among other things, distasteful and repugnant, in fact they are more inclined to say that the more one knows, the more you realize you don't know. I believe its called "humility."

You said he could refute anything that I say. I just said that I doubt it and why I doubt it.

Looking for help eh?
If you don't want to dialogue, just say so, there's no need to go to such drastic measures.

I will dialogue with you if you actually have something intelligent to say. This far all I have seen is whining.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by hshatfield
Does anyone think there is any point in me continuing this discussion with Jan? This is obviously a very ignorant person with no intention of constructive conversation or debate.

In my experience, most discussions with Jan tend to devolve in this way. Still, he does have an interesting and original point of view. But essentially, Jan is a fundamentalist in that everything is reinterpreted by him to be in accordance with certain beliefs. Counter arguments, as you have witnessed, are simply dismissed in order to maintain this particular perspective. Another tendency is his erroneous redefinition of terms, such as he does with the word science, in order to defend particular statements.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
You haven’t and neither have they.

You need to re-read our posts then Jan. Several of us have pointed out errors in his reasoning.

First of all, modern science is not (or should not be) in the business of proving or dis-proving the existence of God, by the definition of God.

Of course this depends upon which definition of God you are referring to but essentially you are correct. Of course I don't know of any science that has attempted to do so which makes me wonder what you are on about.

Modern science is, observing and experimenting with phenomena, its concern is with the materials and functions of the “physical” universe.

Science has not attempted to prove or disprove God. However, it has on occasion disproved various claims as to the physical manifestations of God's effect upon the world.

But from past and present people from all walks of life, some brilliant some not have expressed beliefs in God, or considered that there may be a god, these include a host of scientists.

Testimonial evidence has been clearly shown to be highly unreliable; particularly in such cases where the emotive content is rather high. As such, the evidence is rather weak and seems, to many of us, to be a rather feeble foundation upon which to base such an extraordinary conclusion.

Particularly disarming of the argument is the fact that so many of the testimonies are contradictory to each other. Imagine that one was investigating an auto accident and asked the five eye-witnesses to report their accounts of the event. If each testimony differed significantly from the others, how would one determine which account, if any, was correct? The first line of investigation would be to attempt to discover what, if any, all or most of the accounts had in common. At the same time it would be important to establish (and limit if possible) what, if any, communication the various eye-witnesses had with each other as testimonial evidence is strongly influenced by outside information and have a strong tendency to collaborate various reports of events.

Think about it. If he was an atheist (which is not inconceivable), and he remembers how he felt and acted, then how could he misrepresent them, unless deliberately doing so. I would say he has firsthand knowledge due to his experience.

His error lies in misrepresenting his experience as the experience of all atheists. Certainly Cris and I do not share his experience. Nor do many other atheists. Therefore, his generalization is quite simply erroneous which makes this point of his argument invalid. It is a straw man argument.

In the sense that “science” means knowledge. Knowledge is not only to be found via scientific observation or experiment, even though some would disagree.

No. Science is a particular method of attaining knowledge. It is not synonymous with the word knowledge. There are some things that are quite simply beyond the scope of science.

~Raithere

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hi Cris,

Lose heat and light to where? If the universe is everything then everything will have been consumed in the collapse.

Then how has it been “consumed?”
By your reasoning the “collapse” itself, could be mistaken for an entity.
If everything has been consumed, destroyed, burnt up, whatever, then where are the raw materials for the next cycle?

There is nowhere to lose anything to. Entropy would be reset to zero on each collapse, before the next cycle.

What mechanism would be in place to perform the task of resetting?

Why assume that the singularity was caused by anything other than a natural event?

It seems hardly likely as the singularity is the supposed beginning of all observable nature.

Why assume that the singularity is the only one and that what we call a universe is not just one of an infinite number of them, just like bubbles in a bottle of soda pop.

I don’t think he did assume that, he may have used the idea of our particular universe as an example.

The article does not reference inflationary theory.

Not directly, but he references the walls that all the theories come up against, “the cause.”
How can a “vacuum” be saturated with quantum fields and be subject to fundamental fluctuations.

the speculation that a god started singularities is as arbitrary as any other idea

From your perspective.

except that it is less likely than most since it requires a supernatural realm which is an entirely additional issue to be proved.

Just because it cannot be proved/perceived by modern science does not mean it is less likely to be true. The way to prove Gods existence, can only come from a deductive method. Maybe His existence can’t be proven empirically, but we can come to the understanding after exhausting all possible scientific theories. A work in progress.

As for being an atheist; perhaps his story his true however, the invalid assumption is made that his experience is what it is like for all atheists.

That may be true. But you would need to know him a little better I would say, to attach real certainty to your claim.

Atheism has no universal set of beliefs, dogma, and rules.

In a sense they do (strong ones anyway). Atheists tend to believe either matter has always been, or that it came from nothing, they do not (can’t) believe that matter or the universe was created. This seems dogmatic to me, because to believe that the universe was created would mean a creator must have been involved.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

Lose heat and light to where? If the universe is everything then everything will have been consumed in the collapse.

Then how has it been “consumed?”

I’m sure you know that in physics we observe that matter and energy are never lost or destroyed but only converted to another form. My image here was of the collapse compressing all matter and energy, in the way that we could imagine a black hole absorbing all matter and energy with the appearance of consumption.

If everything has been consumed, destroyed, burnt up, whatever, then where are the raw materials for the next cycle?

That is the point, nothing has been lost, only compressed.

There are a lots of references to black holes on the web if you want to look further.

What mechanism would be in place to perform the task of resetting?

If everything collapses back into a singularity and then explodes again then one would have the same or similar conditions as the start of the current cycle.

Why assume that the singularity was caused by anything other than a natural event?

It seems hardly likely as the singularity is the supposed beginning of all observable nature.

In a cyclic universe there is no beginning.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

except that it is less likely than most since it requires a supernatural realm which is an entirely additional issue to be proved.

Just because it cannot be proved/perceived by modern science does not mean it is less likely to be true.

Yes it does, Occam’s razor would apply here.

Atheism has no universal set of beliefs, dogma, and rules.

In a sense they do (strong ones anyway). Atheists tend to believe either matter has always been, or that it came from nothing, they do not (can’t) believe that matter or the universe was created.

But only for some atheists, and that is their personal choice. Atheism does not teach or insist on this, i.e. it is not dogma. Many atheists simply do not know, while others use their imagination in other ways. The atheist approach is entirely open-minded with no one idea being enforced.

Remember the only thing that all atheists share is that disbelief in gods.

The alternative is that a creative influence is not godlike. I.e. a natural phenomenon.

 

[okinrus]

Yes it does, Occam’s razor would apply here.

This of course depends on your definition of simple. We have no reason to think that pre-existant matter is more simple than God. We have not observed or seen either one physically. Therefore pre-existant matter is just as supernatural as God.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

God this, God that...

Originally posted by Cris
----------
"...in physics we observe that matter and energy are never lost or destroyed but only converted to another form. In a cyclic universe there is no beginning."
----------
(Cris, thanks for explaining this in lay terms. I've always had a feeling about this but was never able to explain it scientifically.)
----------
" ...while others use their imagination in other ways."
----------
(My references to "God" and "the Spirit of God" refer to "matter and energy that are never lost or destroyed but only converted to another form.")
----------
"The alternative is that a creative influence is not godlike. i.e. a natural phenomenon."
----------
(The "creative influence" you mention is what I refer to as "God." Your explanation then, would mean that "God" a "natural phenomenon." Works for me!)

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

We have no reason to think that pre-existant matter is more simple than God.

It is not that the items are simpler relative to each but the explanations. A god and the supernatural require the existence of an entirely non-natural environment to exist to explain their existence. This is a fundamentally more complex explanation than simply theorizing that a natural event was a cause, since we know natural things exist which gives us ample precedent to conclude a natural explanation is simpler than a non-natural explanation. As per Occam’s razor.

We have not observed or seen either one physically. Therefore pre-existant matter is just as supernatural as God.

I made no speculation about pre-existent supernatural matter. I have no reason to believe that anything supernatural can or might exist. My speculation was to a natural phenomenon that triggered the singularity that resulted in the universe we observe today.