atheism vs agnosicism

Post Reply New Topic

Well, yes. But there's nothing stopping it from becoming common knowledge that a Creator is likewise a human invention.

Aristotle was quite intelligent, but as I recall he believed that the earth was the center of the universe.

That's an interesting question. To some extent, yes. If I recall virtual particles correctly, then some particle-antiparticle pairs spontaneously come into existence for a minuscule amount of time. I think the reverse of a black hole, a white hole, might do something like spitting out stuff from nowhere, although white holes can't "really" exist as I recall (although somewhere in my memory I seem to have someone saying something to the effect of 'a white hole can spit out anything at all - including full sized replicas of the Taj Mahal'). Although I must admit to not remembering how these work quite right. But I digress.

Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. No scientific theory suggests people came out of nowhere, but instead are part of a chain of events extending back to, well, The Beginning.

If we wanted to extend that argument back to The Beginning, then, well, we're into some version of the Cosmological Argument.


I've always been a bit uncomfortable with historical sciences in general, this because while other times we make predictions which grant one immediate power, historical sciences have an extra layer of ontological baggage associated with them. While thinking there's something going on other than predictions and outcomes may be necessary to make things satisfying, it seems take things a bit too far, if one is being very strict. Still, it isn't exactly superstitious I wouldn't say, and nonetheless would constitute a well supported belief.

twoshots wrote:

Every cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe. All of our understanding about what exists and what doesn't comes from the perception of matter. However, there is much more to reality than this. To be an atheist based on science and to disregard this is like cherry picking.



That is perceptive. I don't trust historical sciences too much either. History often repeats itself, so I am also wary of modern science. To rely on proof from these sources and selecting what one chooses to believe out of it, does not seem to constitute well supported beliefs.

As far as I know, space is in the universe.

Interesting how many doubts you have in science which scrupulously attacks and proves out its discoveries and how much deep belief you exhibit in scam artists and speculative theology.

Last edited by Sand on 28 Mar 2009, 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sorry, that is just bullsh*t. Where do you get these statements from?

He might be referring to zero point energy

See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

There is a lot of latent energy at the quantum ground state. That is the good new. The bad news is there is no way of extracting it to do useful work.

ruveyn

I'm well aware of zero-point / vacuum energy, I had to do calculations with it as part of my physics degree many years ago. I object to the way a scientific fact has pseudo-science make-believe heaped on top of it and then presented as a factual statement. Every cubic centimetre of empty space does not contain more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe; or did I miss a lecture that said otherwise?

David Bohm said that, Every cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe. You can look him up if you are interested.

This is the context in which the statement was used:
I asked if according to laws of science, can something be created from nothing? If there was no creator, then it should be possible to create something from nothing and we should be able to prove this in a laboratory with repeated tests.

I don't know why you think I base my beliefs on scam artists and speculative theology.
Actually, my spirituality is based on faith. I developed it through experience and being self reliant in my awareness of how I perceive the world. It is based on feeling/impressions/intuition. There is no language to describe it, but it's definitely based on anything that anyone has ever told me I should believe.

I don't know why you think I base my beliefs on scam artists and speculative theology.
Actually, my spirituality is based on faith. I developed it through experience and being self reliant in my awareness of how I perceive the world. It is based on feeling/impressions/intuition. There is no language to describe it, but it's definitely based on anything that anyone has ever told me I should believe.[/quote]

To be fair I am totally mystified about someone conjuring up faith from nothing but what can only be labeled as personal prejudice. Many creative and scientifically trained people investigate physical peculiarities from a stance of hunch but that hunch does not materialize from a background of ignorance. It takes years of accumulating all sorts of hard data to suspect there is some fertility in areas that have not been explored from an innovative viewpoint. Good hunches require an extensive background and mere intuition is insufficient. Faith is baloney.

Sand wrote:

.
I don't conjure up faith from nothing. It developed over years of awareness like I stated before this post. Either you don't understand what I say or you just glossed over it and formed some opinion about me.

I don't consider my spiritual hunches to be formed out of ignorance. I actually analyzed my life and what I perceive very much. You don't know me so stop calling me stupid in all these threads.

I am merely responding to the quality of the information you present in your comments. Perhaps you can help by explaining what you mean bu a spiritual hunch.

David Bohm -Wholeness and the Implicate Order- pp 191. That is where.

I don't know if Bohm is right or not, but considering the source I would not dismiss it as bull sh*t out of hand.

ruveyn

Wow. Thanks for the research ruveyn.