Monday, July 19, 2010

Contradiction at the Heart of Atheism

On the one hand you tell me that laws of physics are just descriptive and they don't determine anything. On the other hand you say that there is natural world that extends beyond our space/time, presumably to anything physical? So you see the dichotomy of nature/spirit as physical, tangible, visible vs "in" and "un" and "non" versions of these, interchangeable, invisible, non physical.

But how can it be that "nature" extends all over existence beyond the realm of all we know to all other realms anywhere and yet there are no prescriptive physical laws? It seems to be that to be able say that you would have to have a set of laws that delimit what can happen. Otherwise how can you possibly know there is not a universe in which all existence is immaterial?



Here are some quotes about Big bang cosmology. They are from major physicists and some obscure physicists and the major upshot of them is we have no physics to explain the big bang.


No Physics to explain something from nothing.


John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]

That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explian it. That is a total paradigm shift.

*Multiverse is unscientific metaphysics.

Sten Odenwald, Gaddard, Nasa: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11215.html

"yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitely old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."

John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explain it. That is a total paradigm shift. "yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitely old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."
Some physicists, such as Oldenwald, are aware of this, but that doesn't stop the the materialists from continuing the assumption. So if it is religious metaphysics its bad, but if its metaphysics the materialist can use it's "ok."



We have no physics to explain the bb and yet you want to argue that know what it is and how works and that is material. dilemma

(1) if physical laws are not prescriptive then you must explain how everything can be the same all over all existence

(2) if psychical laws are not prescriptive

.....(a) believe in miracles there no barrier to them

.....(b) it could be that some worlds are supernatural. It's only if you have a delimiting set of laws that you can clearly define natural from supernatural (if you go by the degraded concept most of you try to defend)

Second dilemma

(1) if there is a physics to explain bb then it's seems physical laws are prescriptive

(2) if there is no physics to explain it then it doesn't corporate by natural law we can well think of the bb as supernatural. Or even magic.

5 comments:

A Hermit said...

This is just an argument from ignorance.."we don't know how the Big Bang happened, therefor Goddidit..."

Odenwald's comments about the non-observability of other universes apply equally to the kind of God you propose.

Metacrock said...

This is just an argument from ignorance.."we don't know how the Big Bang happened, therefor Goddidit..."

No it's not. YOU TOTALLY MISS THE POINT: the basis upon which modern atheism was founded is gone! Makes no difference at all what the basis of any God argument is that has nothing to do with it.

Really though No God argument that is based upon the realization of God is "God did it" that's something stupid that brainless atheists who lack their humanity (they turned it off) say beaus they are they are so stupid they ignore the the way God made us so they turn off the God detection equipment then they go around thinking that their little feeble misguided bullshit is the reason believers have for believing.

they can't stretch their little feeble imaginations enough to understand that belief has its reasons.


Odenwald's comments about the non-observability of other universes apply equally to the kind of God you propose.


No they don't! You only think that because you don't comprehend the basis fo Belief. you think the only basis for any kind of belief can be "objective" (pretense) of "thinghood" based upon empirical bull shit.

You don't understand the real reasons for believing because you turned off your God finder equipment. You don't want to believe so you shut down the parts of your inner being that were atune to reality.

Rex said...

Atheism is not a "belief". It is simply the lack of "belief" in a deity.

It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence, ergo, a - theism.

Think of it as a - unicornism. You do share my a - unicornism, right?

There is ample evidence for the existence of the universe, for deities, not so much.

But let me ask you a couple questions, Mr. I Have All Of The Answers: What is the cause for god? What created god? What was there before god? Something from nothing seems to really bother you, does the same logic apply to your superstition? Someone as learned and esteemed as yourself surely has these answers right? Answer your big bang questions about god.

If your answers actually make rational sense, you will get bonus points, but I am not holding my breath.

Metacrock said...

Blogger Rex said...

Atheism is not a "belief". It is simply the lack of "belief" in a deity.

that's nothing more than a slogan of propaganda that you have suckered into believing. Atheism is a con game. It's obviously not true becuase one can clearly see from what atheist always say it's a total world view.

It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence, ergo, a - theism.


that's another propaganda slogan that suckers like you accept because it's for people who aren't bright and don't know much. The truth is the criteria for acceptance of belief is very complex. There are no quick and easy fact that demonstrate what is ratinoal to believe. But religious belief is demonstrated more rational in a hundred ways.

Think of it as a - unicornism. You do share my a - unicornism, right?


name calling. that's just like the use of the N word.

There is ample evidence for the existence of the universe, for deities, not so much.


there is no such thing as a plurality of deities. The atheist because he is obsessed with "things" and can't think in conceptual terms reduces the concept of God to a "thing" rather than a basis for everything. Because of this conceptual mistake he is not intellectually capable of seeing the necessity for belief.

But let me ask you a couple questions, Mr. I Have All Of The Answers: What is the cause for god? What created god?

another example of the atheist intellectually inferior outlook. Duh they can't get it through their heads. Thins need causes, the baiss of things does not!

God = being itself. that means God is not a being but the basis upon which all be is. "Eternal Necessary Being itself" means this: God is not an individual being but the basis upon which all beings cohere. Does not need cause since "eternal" means no beginning and no end.






What was there before god?

Yet more evidence of the atheist problem of understanding concepts. What part of "No beginning" is so hard for these poor intellectually deficient creatures to grasp?

It is very hard for someone who loves ideas to grasp that this kind of person can't understand concepts.



Something from nothing seems to really bother you, does the same logic apply to your superstition?


I don't have a superstition. anyone who can't understand the concept of "eternal" or of "no beginning no ending" can't understand the distinction between philosophy and superstition.

something from nothing is obviously a contradiction to the basis of naturalistic cause and effect this just demonstrates eh contradiction in atheism argument--it also shows who unable to consider concepts atheists really are.


Someone as learned and esteemed as yourself surely has these answers right? Answer your big bang questions about god.


I just gave them to you.

If your answers actually make rational sense, you will get bonus points, but I am not holding my breath.

Unfortunately in order to understand the answers you would have to actually not have the problem with learning and with concepts that you clearly have.

These are also atheist propaganda slogans that may be why they have such problems with concepts. The brain washing tells them these slogans that prevent them from really thinking deeply about the issues.

Metacrock said...

Blogger Rex said...

Atheism is not a "belief". It is simply the lack of "belief" in a deity.

that's nothing more than a slogan of propaganda that you have suckered into believing. Atheism is a con game. It's obviously not true becuase one can clearly see from what atheist always say it's a total world view.

It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence, ergo, a - theism.


that's another propaganda slogan that suckers like you accept because it's for people who aren't bright and don't know much. The truth is the criteria for acceptance of belief is very complex. There are no quick and easy fact that demonstrate what is ratinoal to believe. But religious belief is demonstrated more rational in a hundred ways.

Think of it as a - unicornism. You do share my a - unicornism, right?


name calling. that's just like the use of the N word.

There is ample evidence for the existence of the universe, for deities, not so much.


there is no such thing as a plurality of deities. The atheist because he is obsessed with "things" and can't think in conceptual terms reduces the concept of God to a "thing" rather than a basis for everything. Because of this conceptual mistake he is not intellectually capable of seeing the necessity for belief.

But let me ask you a couple questions, Mr. I Have All Of The Answers: What is the cause for god? What created god?

another example of the atheist intellectually inferior outlook. Duh they can't get it through their heads. Thins need causes, the baiss of things does not!

God = being itself. that means God is not a being but the basis upon which all be is. "Eternal Necessary Being itself" means this: God is not an individual being but the basis upon which all beings cohere. Does not need cause since "eternal" means no beginning and no end.






What was there before god?

Yet more evidence of the atheist problem of understanding concepts. What part of "No beginning" is so hard for these poor intellectually deficient creatures to grasp?

It is very hard for someone who loves ideas to grasp that this kind of person can't understand concepts.



Something from nothing seems to really bother you, does the same logic apply to your superstition?


I don't have a superstition. anyone who can't understand the concept of "eternal" or of "no beginning no ending" can't understand the distinction between philosophy and superstition.

something from nothing is obviously a contradiction to the basis of naturalistic cause and effect this just demonstrates eh contradiction in atheism argument--it also shows who unable to consider concepts atheists really are.


Someone as learned and esteemed as yourself surely has these answers right? Answer your big bang questions about god.


I just gave them to you.

If your answers actually make rational sense, you will get bonus points, but I am not holding my breath.

Unfortunately in order to understand the answers you would have to actually not have the problem with learning and with concepts that you clearly have.

These are also atheist propaganda slogans that may be why they have such problems with concepts. The brain washing tells them these slogans that prevent them from really thinking deeply about the issues.