Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's Agnosticism, not Atheism.

It's "agnostic atheism".

(A)gnosticism and (a)theism are different answers to different questions. One pertains to knowledge, to other to belief, concerning theistic claims specifically

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right, you feel that God does not exist but the truth is you don't have any evidence that support this.

That's not at all what he said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First you claim that there's no evidence then you say it's delusion. Which is it?

Both.

Delusional beliefs tend to not have any evidence in support of them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And what happens when that innate moral sense gets mangled beyond all recognition?

Things like 9/11

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which makes evident the fundamental necessity all individuals have to be instructed in what is objectively good and precisely what is not.

Otherwise it's all really just narcissism.

There are 2 kind of people who need a perceived authority to tell them the difference between good and evil.

The first are small children.
The second are psychopaths.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, we just reject your claim, that is all.

What claim?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If your beliefs are truly factual then you should be able to prove them. Go for it. I'll wait.

Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia
Reducing irreducible complexity

Took me 2 seconds of googling.

BTW, you might want to inform @Bob the Unbeliever about not assuming answers.

I don't know what you are talking about. I don't necessarily follow every and all posts in every thread.
I'm talking to you, in either case.

I don't speak for @Bob the Unbeliever nore does Bob speak for me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correct. There's also logic and theoretical physics. Why do you think Hawking didn't accept his own theory about Multiverses?

I don't know. Is it important?
Einstein didn't believe his predictions about black holes etc. So what?

Do you think Earth is the only planet in the Universe with life on it? Why? Why not?

I think it is highly doubtfull that earth is the only planet with life on it. A couple of reasons for that, which all taken together, I'ld rate it quite likely that there is life elsewhere, somewhere, at some time.

In no particular order:
- We've only been really looking for a couple decades and covered not even a pixel of our own galactic backyard, yet already we discovered dozens, hundreds of rocky planets orbitting in the goldilock zone (meaning, correct environment for liquid water - a prerequisite for life as we know it).
- There are some 100 billion stars in a galaxy, each with potentially multiple planets orbitting them
- There are some 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. That's a LOT of planets
- Life as we know it, is made up from the most common elements in the universe. In fact, the ration at which elements appear in our bodies, pretty much match the universe one for one in terms of "availability". This essentially means that we are made from the most common stuff in the universe.
- We are carbon based, which in itself is not that hard to make. Carbon is so chemically rich that you can make more molecules out of carbon then all other elements combined.



In short, given the extreme vastness of the universe + the fact that while we like to think we are special, we are actually made from the most common stuff in the universe (found everywhere, throughout the universe), coupled with the realisation that earth (in terms of materials and orbital path) isn't that special either....

Yeah, I'ld say it's quite likely that there is life on other planets in the vast universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Awesome. So, unlike @Bob the Unbeliever, do you believe it's both logical and sensible to discuss the existence of something outside the Natural Universe? Yes or no, please.

In context of a the physics behind the multi-verse, yes.

Let's explain.
Are you aware that the multiverse, by itself, is not actually a hypothesis?
The multiverse is rather a prediction of several other theories / hypothesis.

Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics predict a multiverse.
String theory predicts a multiverse, to an extent.
Inflation theory predicts a multiverse.

So, in the words of Lawrence Krauss: yes, essentially the multiverse is metaphysics, because you can't test it. We can't reach "outside" the universe to see what is going on there. But unlike religious beliefs of "god realms outside the universe", the multiverse idea is actually well motivated... as it is predicted (ie: a natural consequence, predicted by the math) by the models used to explain the observable universe or aspects thereof.

It's well motivated, not because actively came up with it to "explain away" unknowns. It's well motivate, because it naturally flows / is predicted by other models that DO deal with reality directly.

This is the crux of the conversation.

But I don't think you're prepared to be honest about it.
I don't think you'll be able to acknowledge the difference in motivational foundation for the multiverse on the one hand and a "god realm" on the other.

 

[Audie]

Just because you said that, I propose we call it "Audie's Law".

;-)

If it is my law, the penalty is expulsion with
extreme prejudice.

 

[Audie]

If you truly believe so, you should ignore me and move on to someone you respect.

Come on, obi, you are unaware that it was as I said, senseless and inappropriate? Surely you are joking.

 

[Audie]

In context of a the physics behind the multi-verse, yes.

Let's explain.
Are you aware that the multiverse, by itself, is not actually a hypothesis?
The multiverse is rather a prediction of several other theories / hypothesis.

Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics predict a multiverse.
String theory predicts a multiverse, to an extent.
Inflation theory predicts a multiverse.

So, in the words of Lawrence Krauss: yes, essentially the multiverse is metaphysics, because you can't test it. We can't reach "outside" the universe to see what is going on there. But unlike religious beliefs of "god realms outside the universe", the multiverse idea is actually well motivated... as it is predicted (ie: a natural consequence, predicted by the math) by the models used to explain the observable universe or aspects thereof.

It's well motivated, not because actively came up with it to "explain away" unknowns. It's well motivate, because it naturally flows / is predicted by other models that DO deal with reality directly.




But I don't think you're prepared to be honest about it.
I don't think you'll be able to acknowledge the difference in motivational foundation for the multiverse on the one hand and a "god realm" on the other.

Would I be correct to say that, to borrow a phrase
from one of our dedicated fundies,
mathematics "leans toward" the multiverse?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Come on, obi, you are unaware that it was as I said, senseless and inappropriate? Surely you are joking.

His avatar is that of Yoda, not of a belt

 

[Audie]

His avatar is that of Yoda, not of a belt

Oh. I thought all those big ear star barf things were obis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh. I thought all those big ear star barf things were obis.

I do not know what sort of being that Yoda was. I know that Chewbacca was a Wookie. A quick Google search tells me that Yoda is of an unknown species. Obi-Wan Kenobi was a human. And since "Obi" is a nickname it would be spelled with an uppercase 'O'. The noun 'obi' is the Japanese word for belt.

Obi-Wan Kenobi - Wikipedia

Yoda - Wikipedia

Now you know more about Star Wars than you wanted to.AA

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would I be correct to say that, to borrow a phrase
from one of our dedicated fundies,
mathematics "leans toward" the multiverse?

Let me start with the disclaimer that I am not a theoretical physicist, nore even anything close to that...
So what I'm saying/ know on the topic is limited to the extend of what I learned from watching talks from physicists like Krauss and Brian Greene, who try and explain physics in layman terms.

To paraphrase Krauss on your very question:

The multiverse is not something we dreamt up out of the blue... we've been driven to it. We've been driven to it, by the mathematics, the predictions of models like inflation theory, string theory, quantum mechanics... and some of us have been driven there kicking and screaming, like me. Because I don't even "like" the multiverse idea, I think it is ugly and unelegant. But, here we are, with models of reality that seem to work, and from which predictions of a multiverse naturally flow - it's inescapable. So, while these models are far from conclusive at this point, I'm willing to explore that. Not because I want to, but because I have to. Because as a scientist, I need to go where the evidence is leading me.


So I'm guessing the short answer to your question is "yes".

 

[Road Warrior]

...I don't know what you are talking about. ....

No worries.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No worries.

So.... no comments on the actual points being made in that post (or the others)?
Not even an acknowledgement of having received links that explain some of the ways in which IC is a fallacious argument?

Interesting.

 

[Road Warrior]

In context of a the physics behind the multi-verse, yes.

Let's explain.
Are you aware that the multiverse, by itself, is not actually a hypothesis?
The multiverse is rather a prediction of several other theories / hypothesis.

Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics predict a multiverse.
String theory predicts a multiverse, to an extent.
Inflation theory predicts a multiverse.

So, in the words of Lawrence Krauss: yes, essentially the multiverse is metaphysics, because you can't test it. We can't reach "outside" the universe to see what is going on there. But unlike religious beliefs of "god realms outside the universe", the multiverse idea is actually well motivated... as it is predicted (ie: a natural consequence, predicted by the math) by the models used to explain the observable universe or aspects thereof.

It's well motivated, not because actively came up with it to "explain away" unknowns. It's well motivate, because it naturally flows / is predicted by other models that DO deal with reality directly.




But I don't think you're prepared to be honest about it.
I don't think you'll be able to acknowledge the difference in motivational foundation for the multiverse on the one hand and a "god realm" on the other.

Agreed. I think it's anti-science to avoid discussing the research. Obviously there's no hard evidence yet, but further research into Quantum physics might yield results just like the decades of searching for Higgs boson did.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agreed. I think it's anti-science to avoid discussing the research. Obviously there's no hard evidence yet, but further research into Quantum physics might yield results just like the decades of searching for Higgs boson did.

So, does this mean that you acknowledge that propositions like the multiverse, play in an entirely different league then propositions like the gods of theism?

As in: the first is worthy to explore while in the second, there isn't even anything to really explore?