"atheism is a belief"

Originally posted by divegeester
That is a really interesting concept which has intuitive appeal. However as far as I can tell, it doesn't override: mass being created from nothing as a reverse of mass returning to nothing releasing energy. If the net effect is zero, then what caused the big bang?

As I pointed out, it is perfectly valid science. If you think you can rule it out in a few sentences then write a science paper and pick up your Nobel prize.
As for what caused the big bang there are three possibilities:
1. Time started at the big bang and there was no cause.
2. Whatever existed before the big bang caused it.
3. There was some sort of space structure before it and it was a random uncaused event in that space-time.

Even if you believe God made the universe, you will still have to pick one of the above 3. God either created the universe from some prior spacetime or he created space time itself - but that 'creation' is an event in an external timeline and cannot really be called 'causative' within our timeline. It would also be in error to make any deductions from rules within our timeline about such external timeline events.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I pointed out, it is perfectly valid science. If you think you can rule it out in a few sentences then write a science paper and pick up your Nobel prize.

What part of my post indicated to you that I am trying to rule it out?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Something lit the big fuse?

As a professed Christian, do you believe that God created the heavens and the earth?

Originally posted by divegeester
What part of my post indicated to you that I am trying to rule it out?

I may have misunderstood your post. Maybe you could clarify what you were saying?
I had thought your argument was:
The universe has energy, therefore there must have been a cause that inserted the energy.
I am saying that if the energy is zero then maybe no cause is required.
You then asked what was the cause.

Originally posted by C Hess
I never realised that gravity was supposed to be the negative energy. I always thought that it would be so called dark energy. Physics is confusing, to say the least. 🙄

Dark energy is hypothesized to exist because it is needed to balance out all that gravitational energy that is supposed to be pulling the universe back together. The universe is expanding not collapsing and the visible energy is not enough to explain that, so there must be more positive energy we haven't found (dark energy).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I may have misunderstood your post. Maybe you could clarify what you were saying?
I had thought your argument was:
The universe has energy, therefore there must have been a cause that inserted the energy.
I am saying that if the energy is zero then maybe no cause is required.
You then asked what was the cause.

I'm not a scientist and specifically not a quantum physicist so would never be so presumptuous as to say that validate science was wrong. However it is "theory" and while being intriguing and intuitively sound, it doesn't contradict the proven science that matter transforms into pure energy and pure energy can therefore transform into matter (mass). My post was reminding us of this and also asking if the net total energy in the universe is zero, then what "cause" caused the universe to become (what's the word...) unbalanced and spring into existence. I.e. if net energy = zero, then by scientific definition, net mass = zero. Nothing exists and the nothing is stable. Something must have set (tipped) the explosive expansion process into motion - agreed?

Hypothesis: perhaps the universe is in a pendulum motion, swinging back and forth from existence to alternative existence, with a "zero" mass energy position being in the middle. While this is not actually possible on earth (a pendulum in swing with zero energy), maybe it is possible with an expanding and contracting universe.

However if the universe does not have sufficient mass in order for it to contract (closed universe?) then surely the theory of zero net energy cannot be correct as there would be sufficient gravity to counteract the expansion.

Originally posted by divegeester
However it is "theory" and while being intriguing and intuitively sound, it doesn't contradict the proven science that matter transforms into pure energy and pure energy can therefore transform into matter (mass).

Agreed. I must point out that in the early stages of the big bang there was a lot of energy and no mass and the mass was created from that energy.

My post was reminding us of this and also asking if the net total energy in the universe is zero, then what "cause" caused the universe to become (what's the word...) unbalanced and spring into existence. I.e. if net energy = zero, then by scientific definition, net mass = zero.
No, that doesn't follow. Energy can be converted to mass, it doesn't mean mass=energy. Net mass is most definitely not zero.

Nothing exists and the nothing is stable.
Where does that come from?

Something must have set (tipped) the explosive expansion process into motion - agreed?
No, not agreed. As has been stated many times already, there is no good scientific reason to think that everything has a cause. There is no good reason to assume that something must have started the explosive expansion. Also of note, there is no good reason to think there was definitely a 'before'.

Hypothesis: perhaps the universe is in a pendulum motion, swinging back and forth from existence to alternative existence, with a "zero" mass energy position being in the middle.
No, the zero energy hypothesis suggests that the universe has now and always has had a net zero energy.

However if the universe does not have sufficient mass in order for it to contract (closed universe?) then surely the theory of zero net energy cannot be correct as there would be sufficient gravity to counteract the expansion.
Net zero energy would, I believe, result in infinite expansion, but I would need to check that. It probably also depends on whether or not the universe is infinite in size (also not known).

Originally posted by divegeester
That is a really interesting concept which has intuitive appeal. However as far as I can tell, it doesn't override: mass being created from nothing as a reverse of mass returning to nothing releasing energy. If the net effect is zero, then what caused the big bang?

Given that we are talking about the fact that events [up-to and including the big bang] may not in fact have a 'cause',
and the fact that it's entirely possible that there was no time before the big bang for there to have been a cause in,
that question may be meaningless, or have an answer of nothing, or a myriad of other answers, including the only
correct one for the present... We don't know.

Originally posted by divegeester
That is a really interesting concept which has intuitive appeal. However as far as I can tell, it doesn't override: mass being created from nothing as a reverse of mass returning to nothing releasing energy. If the net effect is zero, then what caused the big bang?

Prestidigitation?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Prestidigitation?

Nah, that's a level 0 cantrip, need at least a level 7 spell to create a whole new universe.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"Would (you) agree with the "fact that "We all share belief or faith as a third mean of perception based on confidence in the authority of someone whose veracity we explicitly trust..." with reference to our perceptions within the secular realm?"

Agree with it? Not sure i even understand it. 😉 (I guess you could say i 'believe in my own rea ...[text shortened]... it). My atheism too is not absolute. I am always open to new evidence. (Not to be found on youtube).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"Would (you) agree with the "fact that "We all share belief or faith as a third mean of perception based on confidence in the authority of someone whose veracity we explicitly trust..." with reference to our perceptions within the secular realm?" ---> [Sure: "secular" and/or with any and all other categorical distinctions with a difference; since some distinctions represent little more than gratuitous synonyms.]

Agree with it? Not sure i even understand it. 😉 (I guess you could say i 'believe in my own reason based on acquired knowledge and influenced by others who i have found to be compelling). ---> [Question for you: Would you agree that "my own reason" and mine for that matter are not the sole arbiters of fact from fiction and absolute truth from half truths mixed with error and outright falsehoods because our mental capacity/knowledge is finite rather than infinite?]

And a hat doesn't have absolute authority, or the ability to question itself. (If it did, i would sell it). My atheism too is not absolute. I am always open to new evidence. (Not to be found on youtube)." ---> [I for one appreciated your nuanced metaphorical use of such a common and diminutive word as "hat". "(Not to be found on youtube)" Agree since that vehicle is primarily used for entertainment rather than academic purposes.].

Originally posted by moonbus
Bob,

Would you please try to get your mind round something: atheism is not Christianity with a God-shaped hole in it.

No disrespect intended.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
atheism is a belief Thread 154278 (33 Pages)
Original post by apathist [on 13 Jul '13 14:01.Last moved 614 days 14 hours and 38 minutes ago]

"There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.

By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.

I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/"
_______________________________________

"Your opinions, speculations and/or latest insights pro or con?"

moonbus, the statement "atheism is a belief" was posted by apathist whereas only the final question was mine; nor was any "disrespect" taken..Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
(Not to be found on youtube)" Agree since that vehicle is primarily used for entertainment rather than academic purposes.].

That is like saying "TV is primarily used for entertainment not news or academic purposes therefore we shouldn't expect to find anything serious on it" or "Books are primarily used for for entertainment therefore we shouldn't expect to find anything serious in them."
The truth however is that YouTube is used as a vehicle for education - a very significant vehicle. It is a common mistake to think of YouTube as a small website with a single focus, but the reality is that YouTube exceeds the content and diversity of all TV stations past and present put together.
I have personally done some university courses which were primarily delivered via YouTube. They significantly enhanced my education.
A related but not identical mistake is to dismiss Wikipedia without realizing that it is the worlds biggest and best encyclopedia and probably exceeds all other information repositories in its usefulness to the world.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Your opinions, speculations and/or latest insights pro or con?

apathist's opinion aside, do you think atheism is a belief?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is like saying "TV is primarily used for entertainment not news or academic purposes therefore we shouldn't expect to find anything serious on it" or "Books are primarily used for for entertainment therefore we shouldn't expect to find anything serious in them."
The truth however is that YouTube [b]is used as a vehicle for education - a very sig ...[text shortened]... clopedia and probably exceeds all other information repositories in its usefulness to the world.[/b]

That's true.

My own 'put down' of youtube was really in relation to the links Hinds puts up in these forums.