What does "atheist" really mean ?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

VT,

(As you answered me that the world was not eternal in the past)

I make the question simple; what is your opinion:

The world was born, or not ?

What are you getting at? All the evidence points to the Big Bang. You can look it up for yourself. I see this leading to the old 'fill the gaps with god' story.
ROFL! I just saw a website that had the heading, 'Scientists Disprove Big Bang Theory'. It looked legitimate and there was nothing 'religious' in the URL (usually there is the word creation or some such in there). I scrolled down a bit and low-and-behold: 'Answers In Genesis scientist Danny Faulkner says....blah, blah, blah...' BWHAAA!!! There was also a photo of that prik Bill O'Reilly lol. You wonder why there is such a thing as 'militant' atheism? Probably because there are so many lying, dangerous, militant, scumbag religious nut-jobs around.

[NielsBohr]

Probably because there are so many lying, dangerous, militant, scumbag religious nut-jobs around.

Okay.

What are you getting at? All the evidence points to the Big Bang.

-Oh no, not so evident, mainly because of:

• the dilatation of time (at an extremity, we could think that being extremely dilated, the time could have been stretched to the eternity in the past - this is why I believe in some original atom),
• the attempts to reproduce the same conditions as the instant Zero, in the synchrotrons, require exponential energies.

These two reasons are maybe bounded; anyway, we'll never reach the instant Zero! In the contrary of what you say, the Big-Bang theory has nothing obvious !

You can look it up for yourself. I see this leading to the old 'fill the gaps with god' story.

Lol.

ROFL! I just saw a website that had the heading, 'Scientists Disprove Big Bang Theory'. It looked legitimate and there was nothing 'religious' in the URL (usually there is the word creation or some such in there). I scrolled down a bit and low-and-behold: 'Answers In Genesis scientist Danny Faulkner says....blah, blah, blah...' BWHAAA!!! There was also a photo of that prik Bill O'Reilly lol. You wonder why there is such a thing as 'militant' atheism?

Finally,

I do not know what you think, between the two ways.

Obviously, the ideal of Big-Bang way would make me the work easier with you, because I'll demand you what was the difference between a force initially acting, and God.

At least, with me, you're instructing yourself.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I have no idea what you are talking about. There's no point in continuing with this. Just because we don't know everything there is to know about everything doesn't mean you can use god as a convenient plug; essentially a white-robed, cosmic putty.

[NielsBohr]

Anyway, I don't mind about "The" Big-Bang theory, because essentially due to the high energies, we'll never reach the time Zero.

The illustration at its born, the universe could submit an instantly big acceleration. This causes two phenomenons, what we call:

• a dilation of time and a shorting of lengths;
• a increase of kinetic energy - this is why in the synchrotrons, we would like to approach the celerity of light with the particles... to reproduce the same conditions.

----------------------------
But I'll give for you my Big-Bang theory:
almost the same as above, but postulating an "atom" at the origin Zero, but which could be accorded with some theories about Big-Bang, knowing: the Big-Bang happened everywhere in the (expanding) universe.

Effectively, at instant Zero, as there are not yet dynamics, the is no time. But as there are no matter elsewhere than in the "atom", the space has not anymore sense.

Nevertheless, "no time" is not in contradiction with an eternity in the past. For me, it is even exactly the same - we where there.
No time - for me - was not an infinitesimal fraction on time to born, as there was nothing "before".

This can mean "other dimensions", but we were there as eternally.

The next is as the classical Big-Bang theory (which itself, has to prove the premise to the universe, although scientists knows that they'll never can).

[Blaggard]

Time zero is impossible even in the heat death of the universe, Niels, it is impossible to have zero energy which also by consequence means there can't be zero time, you know that. Stop playing with VT. If you want to talk about physics you should probably limit yourself to someone who knows what the hell you are talking about.

Absolute zero is impossible for the same reason, there can be ground energy states, but energy can never be created or destroyed, there hence cannot be a condition where nothing energetic is going on. Let's keep it Science. The universe supposedly will grind down, experiencing ever decreasing mass in an ever expanding universe. it's fairly simple to see where that leads, time approaches but never reaches zero, and mass approaches like wise. The maths is simple we cannot have a limit that can be broken in the laws of thermodynamics, to do so would break fundamental laws of energy conservation, and these seem inviolable with what we know. Nothing is ever nothing, and likewise it is never everything, it only slides towards it, something we have a maths term for. The singularity the heat death, nothing is infinite, everything is not infinitessemal.

Scientists can't prove what you want, may never be able to, but a god of the gaps argument is lazy.

It's quite simple, just because we don't know something, does not mean magic slides in by slight of hand. We don't know only means that, it does not make any other "theory" that knows nothing somewhat more viable by such magic tricks. That would be weak and sloppy philosophy at best, and: not even wrong, science at worst.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Time zero is impossible even in the heat death of the universe, Niels, it is impossible to have zero energy which also by consequence means there can't be zero time, you know that. Stop playing with VT. If you want to talk about physics you should probably limit yourself to someone who knows what the hell you are talking about.

Absolute zero is impossible for the same reason, there can be ground energy states, but energy can never be created or destroyed, there hence cannot be a condition where nothing energetic is going on. Let's keep it Science. The universe supposedly will grind down, experiencing ever decreasing mass in an ever expanding universe. it's fairly simple to see where that leads, time approaches but never reaches zero, and mass approaches like wise. The maths is simple we cannot have a limit that can be broken in the laws of thermodynamics, to do so would break fundamental laws of energy conservation, and these seem inviolable with what we know. Nothing is ever nothing, and likewise it is never everything, it only slides towards it, something we have a maths term for. The singularity the heat death, nothing is infinite, everything is not infinitessemal.

Scientists can't prove what you want, may never be able to, but a god of the gaps argument is lazy.

It's quite simple, just because we don't know something, does not mean magic slides in by slight of hand. We don't know only means that, it does not make any other "theory" that knows nothing somewhat more viable by such magic tricks. That would be weak and sloppy philosophy at best, and: not even wrong, science at worst.

My point was that he doesn't know what he's talking about, therefore no-one else will. But from what I can decipher, he's saying there must have been an atom before the Big Bang, an atom that has apparently been around 'forever,' and that this is proof of 'god'. The 'god atom'.

[HexHammer]

Hi,

I would like to know what atheist really means...
literally, "without God".

But if God is this entity omnipresent, how could atheists be "without" him, I don't understand...

I understand that we could be very skeptical about the possibility of God, or again that we consider his promise truth as inaccessible during the life as for agnostics,

but the only way I can conceive - possibly - the atheists themselves, consists in a rebellion in mind.

-Would there be other ways to be atheist ?

Somehow I doubt you have read much of the bible.

[NielsBohr]

Hi,

I would like to know what atheist really means...
literally, "without God".

But if God is this entity omnipresent, how could atheists be "without" him, I don't understand...

I understand that we could be very skeptical about the possibility of God, or again that we consider his promise truth as inaccessible during the life as for agnostics,

but the only way I can conceive - possibly - the atheists themselves, consists in a rebellion in mind.

-Would there be other ways to be atheist ?

Somehow I doubt you have read much of the bible.

-HexHammer,

Would you really see me writing: "Atheists, according to the Bible, what so you think about..." - this is not serious !

This topic is not about the Bible, but depending of the last evolutions of the topic (as "Big-Bang"), it could lead to the distinction between Nature and God.

To give you my own thought, I cannot conceive that an hypothetical first match's spark could be contained in the Universe, letting it creating itself.

[NielsBohr]

Time zero is impossible even in the heat death of the universe, Niels, it is impossible to have zero energy which also by consequence means there can't be zero time, you know that. Stop playing with VT. If you want to talk about physics you should probably limit yourself to someone who knows what the hell you are talking about.

Absolute zero is impossible for the same reason, there can be ground energy states, but energy can never be created or destroyed, there hence cannot be a condition where nothing energetic is going on. Let's keep it Science. The universe supposedly will grind down, experiencing ever decreasing mass in an ever expanding universe. it's fairly simple to see where that leads, time approaches but never reaches zero, and mass approaches like wise. The maths is simple we cannot have a limit that can be broken in the laws of thermodynamics, to do so would break fundamental laws of energy conservation, and these seem inviolable with what we know. Nothing is ever nothing, and likewise it is never everything, it only slides towards it, something we have a maths term for. The singularity the heat death, nothing is infinite, everything is not infinitessemal.

Scientists can't prove what you want, may never be able to, but a god of the gaps argument is lazy.

It's quite simple, just because we don't know something, does not mean magic slides in by slight of hand. We don't know only means that, it does not make any other "theory" that knows nothing somewhat more viable by such magic tricks. That would be weak and sloppy philosophy at best, and: not even wrong, science at worst.

My point was that he doesn't know what he's talking about, therefore no-one else will. But from what I can decipher, he's saying there must have been an atom before the Big Bang, an atom that has apparently been around 'forever,' and that this is proof of 'god'. The 'god atom'.

-Blaggard,

I see you better now, and thank you for your constructed argumentation.

But VT seems to have understood me better - in despite of his first humour sentence - than you did in several paragraphs, and I'll explain you why:

When I told about the increase of kinetic energy, it was only of this kind of energy. I have never told that the total energy was not conserved (although some physicist think about to take energy from the void... what is another (complicated) story).

But even VT is about to think that I compare an "original atom" as being God - that is not my thought at all!

I resumed what I think in my answer to HexHammer - who took your answers for my purposes.

Deeply, my thought is that God knows many others dimensions than ours. He could be transcendant in our universe - I believe this - but I think he is external, too. The Father more than Jesus, Who is for me a divin humain. And the Holy Spirit is - according to me - this transcendency of God in our Universe.

Nevertheless, God as being a (large) amount of particles make no sense for me.

So to resume:
(God is not his Creation),
The Father is mainly out of our universe,
the original atom is not God,
the initial spark to make the universe deploy (from 0 second to 0.0...01 second) could not be contained in our universe itself (this purpose justify for me the intervention of God),
No kinetic energy in the initial atom do not mean at all that there was no energy at all! A potential energy is surely possible, even with Zero second.

So here are all my thoughts. No catch. Only a coherent thought, sometimes speculative - or rather than that - "postulative", by continue prolongation of the Big-Bang theory, mentally done as it cannot be done technically.

Thank you.

[HexHammer]

Hi,

I would like to know what atheist really means...
literally, "without God".

But if God is this entity omnipresent, how could atheists be "without" him, I don't understand...

I understand that we could be very skeptical about the possibility of God, or again that we consider his promise truth as inaccessible during the life as for agnostics,

but the only way I can conceive - possibly - the atheists themselves, consists in a rebellion in mind.

-Would there be other ways to be atheist ?

Somehow I doubt you have read much of the bible.

-HexHammer,

Would you really see me writing: "Atheists, according to the Bible, what so you think about..." - this is not serious !

This topic is not about the Bible, but depending of the last evolutions of the topic (as "Big-Bang"), it could lead to the distinction between Nature and God.

To give you my own thought, I cannot conceive that an hypothetical first match's spark could be contained in the Universe, letting it creating itself.

One that makes random answers to questions or answers, can be considerd mad.

[NielsBohr]

Yes, we have a dedicated expression in french for this, translated as "Jump from the chicken to the donkey", and that reassure me that you don't think so about me.

I am using the maieutic, understood as going from general to particular, as any other research, and in a way to only understand each atheists who post here - I think it is a minimum. But as it is, I have to use one maieutic pro one corresponding person - this is a question of integrity (and this is literal, as in databases) - if you did not realize this.

Effectively, I already answered that the notion of omnipresence is only a hypothesis - not necessarily true. I accord this for so in my thoughts, but don't consider this necessary for others. Maybe did I bad expressed myself.

I think there is a big deal in being able of distinction between the Creator and His Creature (Frankenstein was the creator - not the monster ), at least conceptually.

Thank you.

[Sappho de Miranda]

Thank you Miranda,

I already wrote, that the "Omnipresence" was in question in the church itself... so you are right.

I understand your joke about Buddhism, if it is one.

In regard to omnipresence, I have not heard that 'The Church' and I assume you mean 'The Catholic Church' have drawn it into question, although I acknowledge that some people who are 'academic' theists of 'The Church' do question the concept. However, some are not all, or even most. There are some of 'The Church of England who are openly agnostic, and a very few atheist but who will subscribe to that faith because the 'Christ' faith serves them well and their 'flock'.

Nonetheless, omnipresence, be it questionable or not, is not at the heart of theism. At the heart of theism is the belief in a creator who intervenes in the lives of those he created.

Someone, and I apologize for not naming that someone, made mention of Shelley's Frankenstein as an example or thought experiment, I assume, of the Creator intervening in the life of the created. I think it fails however to give the true essence of what theism intends. Frankenstein was a horror story pure and simple. It used the rather shocking idea of grave robbery for science which was prolific during Shelley's time to generate that horror story. And whilst Shelley played with the idea of 'playing god', it lacked the necessary theistic qualities to be truly considered 'god playing'. Theism requires of a 'creator' to be 'supernatural'... that is... beyond nature and not of nature as mere humans are. Quite frankly, if all that is required of a creator is to create a human and then purposefully intervene in the life of same, then parents are gods also.

It should be said that "A Force" created the world, in place of a "personified" God, but this is already a God. Moreover, maybe this God is the Nature itself, but you'll see what I mean... transitively, his gods are the physicists.

I think you are playing with words here. To say that a force creates and that force can be of nature does not mean that that force is therefore a god. A god is something that is beyond nature and not of nature. So that iff (if and only if) 'The Big Bang' theory is proven, then it does not follow that The Big Bang is supernatural. It simply means that there are natural causes for the existence of creation.

And I will tell you because they are not mine - because due to the exponential energies which are to be engaged to go to the instant Zero in the synchrotrons, they'll never be able to do this.

Unless you can explain yourself in laymen terms, I can only view that last comment as pseudoscience.

[NielsBohr]

Thank you for your intervention Sappho de Miranda,

-Yes, obviously, (as the protestant I am), I considered catholic Church, not the anglican which seems to me as protestant one with the catholic splendor (a synthetical Church).

-Yes, as told to HexHammer, I was evoking - and not invoking - the omnipresence. Meaning I considered as such for myself, without considering it necessarily true for others.

Someone, and I apologize for not naming that someone, made mention of Shelley's Frankenstein as an example or thought experiment, I assume, of the Creator intervening in the life of the created.

You don't have to apologize: that someone was me, but you should rather apologize for having assumed this as referring to God. As I explicitly mentioned, it was to distinguish the creator from his creature, and not anything more.

To say that a force creates and that force can be of nature does not mean that that force is therefore a god.

-You did not read me well. I wrote that such a creating force could be God, and that God could me of the Nature.

That doesn't mean at all the the force creating can be of Nature. And explicitly, it cannot:

an entity cannot construct itself. This is of elementary concepts. By this, the remaining of your reasoning is void.

-My last paragraph meant only that the attempts in re-creating the Big-Bang conditions would be impossible, due to the exponential energies. I think this is the last qualificative that you do not understand.

To have an idea: make simply a search on Google about an exponential curve.

But I explain you anyway:
With a parameter - the time - on horizontal "x" axe, and energy on vertical "y" axe,
which meet at the origin on 0 of both values, and orthogonal the one regarding the other,

you should obtain - more precisely - a negative exponential, what means:
if you go from the high values of time, to the lower, you do not get a proportional straight ligne. In every point you reach on time (in the direction to 0), you should obtain "more higher energy than the previous higher energy" at the last interval of time.

Each interval of time shows an higher increase in energy than the previous.

By continuation anyway, the attempt to reproduce the "first" (if there is, as it is continuous) condition, would require an infinite energy.

[randallbenak]

If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.

[Sappho de Miranda]

Niels Bohr

When I ask for a layperson view of your belief in our inability to prove The Big Bang Theory... I wasn't expecting you to encourage me to become at one with my GoogleFu and answer it myself. For the sake of humour, I believe that THIS is what you are referring to. Well, I can do science me too... like also... And it seems to me that Science is less interested in absolutes and greatly interested in the in-between. Science has no interest then in proving that something came from nothing, nor that everything is possible for that matter. Science is interested in seeking out the best explanations given the observations possible. The synchrotrons are quite useful then as scientific tools of experimentation. So why the nay-saying which serves no purpose?

Also, what was the purpose of the Frankenstein example? You say it was merely to compare and contrast the Creator and created, but provided no stipulation on Creator thus causing me to question the validity of the example itself. This is after all a discussion on Atheism/ Theism and 'Creator' has a very specific meaning in that regard, so important to stipulate quite clearly the qualities of Creator and created if you wish to clearly tease that polarity. And you haven't done that... at least, not in a way that a lay person might understand you.

Finally, the 'quale' of your god, does seem to fit with the qualia of others. I suspect that a theist of the Abraham Faith would struggle to perceive of your god as their god... perhaps they are right on that score.