Coming out as an Agnostic

[TheRealJonStewart]

Nobody on your team has made even one attempt to lift a quote or idea from the video.  How in the world are we supposed to have any kind of substantive dialogue about "something from nothing" if y'all just keep shuckin' and jivin' and letting Dawkins and Hitchens lift your load for ya? 

Hey, if you want to get one of them to come on here to clean up y'alls mess.

"Something from nothing" is your phrase, not mine.  Try to pay attention.

Don't be a jerk now.

 

[ALAYMAN]

"Something from nothing" is your phrase, not mine.  Try to pay attention.

Well, it was actually Joseph's term (via Lawrence  Krauss).  I'm just trying to get one of you atheists/agnostics to defend your own concepts.  Maybe you would prefer to call it Spontaneous Generation, or jettison the whole ex nihilo concept altogether with a wave of the hand, click your heels three times,  and say a magical incantation of "panspermia, Panspermia, PANSPERMIA"!

 

[Joseph007]

"Something from nothing" is your phrase, not mine.  Try to pay attention.

Well, it was actually Joseph's term (via Lawrence  Krauss).  I'm just trying to get one of you atheists/agnostics to defend your own concepts.  Maybe you would prefer to call it Spontaneous Generation, or jettison the whole ex nihilo concept altogether with a wave of the hand, click your heels three times,  and say a magical incantation of "panspermia, Panspermia, PANSPERMIA"!

Again, the concepts and theories are not easy to understand so I can't just hammer out a quit response with any detail. I have a job and work a lot more than 40 hrs a week. I also have a family that I like to spend time with. That's why I just posted the video hoping you could understand it. But if you must have an answer now and one that you can understand (but won't necessarily agree with) I'll give you one. Nature did it. You'll have to stand by for details.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

Again, the concepts and theories are not easy to understand so I can't just hammer out a quit response with any detail. I have a job and work a lot more than 40 hrs a week. I also have a family that I like to spend time with. That's why I just posted the video hoping you could understand it. But if you must have an answer now and one that you can understand (but won't necessarily agree with) I'll give you one. Nature did it. You'll have to stand by for details.

Yeah, I understand how busy life can get.  Besides a full-time job, father and husband, coaching responsibilities, Christmas shopping, church multiple times a week and other attendant wacky religious happenings, I try to figure out how something came from nothing WAAAAAY too much.   Take your time, I look forward to your explaining to this simple mind how Dr Krauss makes sense of these trifling things.

In the meantime, just a snippet from the video for those who didn't want to spend an hour of their time trying to figure out such stuff.  At the 20 minute mark Krauss makes the following statement regarding ?nothing? having properties tantamount to weight?.

That sounds ridiculous.  Why should nothing weigh something?  The answer is ?nothing isn?t nothing anymore? (in physics)?.On extremely small scales nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in a a time scale so short you can?t see them.  Now again that sounds like philosophy, like counting the number of angels on the head of a pin, or religion, or something useless.

Sounds like maybe a religion here indeed.  Sorta reminds me of a recent Christian apologist's slogan "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".

 

[Joseph007]

Again, the concepts and theories are not easy to understand so I can't just hammer out a quit response with any detail. I have a job and work a lot more than 40 hrs a week. I also have a family that I like to spend time with. That's why I just posted the video hoping you could understand it. But if you must have an answer now and one that you can understand (but won't necessarily agree with) I'll give you one. Nature did it. You'll have to stand by for details.

Yeah, I understand how busy life can get.  Besides a full-time job, father and husband, coaching responsibilities, Christmas shopping, church multiple times a week and other attendant wacky religious happenings, I try to figure out how something came from nothing WAAAAAY too much.   Take your time, I look forward to your explaining to this simple mind how Dr Krauss makes sense of these trifling things.

In the meantime, just a snippet from the video for those who didn't want to spend an hour of their time trying to figure out such stuff.  At the 20 minute mark Krauss makes the following statement regarding ?nothing? having properties tantamount to weight?.

That sounds ridiculous.  Why should nothing weigh something?  The answer is ?nothing isn?t nothing anymore? (in physics)?.On extremely small scales nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in a a time scale so short you can?t see them.  Now again that sounds like philosophy, like counting the number of angels on the head of a pin, or religion, or something useless.

Sounds like maybe a religion here indeed.  Sorta reminds me of a recent Christian apologist's slogan "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".
[/quote]A shorter version of the above comments....
I don't understand it = God did it

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

I don't understand it = God did it

Okay, so now we know that I have faith.  The point is, and this isn't a new scientific observation, but scientists have faith too.  Dr Krauss just admitted it.  Everybody has some degree of faith.  You have just substituted one religion for another Joseph, whether you are ready to admit it or not.  Science is your authority.  And where science has to fill in gaps, admit it doesn't know, and assume facts not in evidence, it takes F-A-I-T-H.  Just notice how many times in the video the expert (Dr Krauss) uses language like "probably",  "we think", and "the observers (that's Empirical Science, a bedrock of the scientific method, which is mocking ) got the wrong damn numbers".

 

[Route_70]

That sounds ridiculous.  Why should nothing weigh something?  The answer is ?nothing isn?t nothing anymore? (in physics)?.On extremely small scales nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in a a time scale so short you can?t see them.  Now again that sounds like philosophy, like counting the number of angels on the head of a pin, or religion, or something useless.

Sounds like maybe a religion here indeed.  Sorta reminds me of a recent Christian apologist's slogan "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".

ALAYzMAN. I don't know if you are serious or not.  If you are serious, then here is my suggestion:  study up on the "Standard Model" of quantum physics.  You say you are trained in physics then you puke at the above quote makes me wonder just what kind of physics you studied.

in 1990 I started studying this concept of a Higgs field and Higg boson -- the so-called "God" particle.  Finally, around 2012, physicists at CERN "discovered" the particle, which really isn't a particle.  The quote above describes "virtual" particles.  They contribute to Steven Hawking's idea that "black holes aren't necessarily all that black."

In quantum physics, particles are like waves on the ocean.  You see them, but there really isn't anything of substance there.  The definition of mass and matter changes when you go down to the sub-atomic arena.  Fascinating stuff!

Personally, I think you know about all this already.  You are just baiting someone into bringing it up so you can deliver one of your pet "clever" retorts.

 

[Joseph007]

I don't understand it = God did it

Okay, so now we know that I have faith.  The point is, and this isn't a new scientific observation, but scientists have faith too.  Dr Krauss just admitted it.  Everybody has some degree of faith.  You have just substituted one religion for another Joseph, whether you are ready to admit it or not.  Science is your authority.  And where science has to fill in gaps, admit it doesn't know, and assume facts not in evidence, it takes F-A-I-T-H.  Just notice how many times in the video the expert (Dr Krauss) uses language like "probably",  "we think", and "the observers (that's Empirical Science, a bedrock of the scientific method, which is mocking ) got the wrong damn numbers".

Well of course they say those things. They don't know everything. That is why they continue their research and experiments. There was a time when scientists didn't understand why things fell down on earth and didn't just float around. A scientist (not a preacher through divine inspiration) developed a testable hypothesis. From that came the theory of gravity. If another scientist comes up with a new and different study and proves the theory of gravity to be incorrect and the new theory to be correct scientist will, after testing and proving it themselves, adopt this new theory. What they will not do is say that they can't believe the new theory inspite of the evidence because of a spiritual adherence to the old belief. The difference is scientists admit what they don't know or don't understand. They aren't dogmatic about it. They seek the truth where ever they can find it. Religious people will never believe anything contrary to their religious doctrine no matter how much evidence there is. That is another reason I'm not in a real hurry to answer you.  Nothing I or anyone else ever says or proves or has evidence for will ever be enough to change your religiously held beliefs. Ever. No matter what. Religious people hold this ability to continue believing in the face of overwhelming evidence to be a sign of a good Christian. I understand. I was a Christian for a long time and there was a time I would have been the same way.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Route_70]

A scientist (not a preacher through divine inspiration) developed a testable hypothesis. From that came the theory of gravity. If another scientist comes up with a new and different study and proves the theory of gravity to be incorrect and the new theory to be correct scientist will, after testing and proving it themselves, adopt this new theory. What they will not do is say that they can't believe the new theory inspite of the evidence because of a spiritual adherence to the old belief. The difference is scientists admit what they don't know or don't understand. They aren't dogmatic about it. They seek the truth where ever they can find it. Religious people will never believe anything contrary to their religious doctrine no matter how much evidence there is. That is another reason I'm not in a real hurry to answer you.  Nothing I or anyone else ever says or proves or has evidence for will ever be enough to change your religiously held beliefs. Ever. No matter what. Religious people hold this ability to continue believing in the face of overwhelming evidence to be a sign of a good Christian. I understand. I was a Christian for a long time and there was a time I would have been the same way.

My sentiments, exactly.  Jesus Christ himself could return to earth and announce that the big bang and evolution are true, and today's fundy evangelicals would argue with him.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Well of course they say those things. They don't know everything. That is why they continue their research and experiments. There was a time when scientists didn't understand why things fell down on earth and didn't just float around. A scientist (not a preacher through divine inspiration) developed a testable hypothesis. From that came the theory of gravity. If another scientist comes up with a new and different study and proves the theory of gravity to be incorrect and the new theory to be correct scientist will, after testing and proving it themselves, adopt this new theory. What they will not do is say that they can't believe the new theory inspite of the evidence because of a spiritual adherence to the old belief. The difference is scientists admit what they don't know or don't understand. They aren't dogmatic about it. They seek the truth where ever they can find it. Religious people will never believe anything contrary to their religious doctrine no matter how much evidence there is. That is another reason I'm not in a real hurry to answer you.  Nothing I or anyone else ever says or proves or has evidence for will ever be enough to change your religiously held beliefs. Ever. No matter what. Religious people hold this ability to continue believing in the face of overwhelming evidence to be a sign of a good Christian. I understand. I was a Christian for a long time and there was a time I would have been the same way.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Forgive my frankness  here Joseph, but I don't believe some of what you've written.  I don't believe that you think people don't change their minds.  You were religious, now look how far you've come (and just think, I was an atheist for almost half my life ).  That's an internal inconsistency in your deflection of the challenge to defend your position.  And secondly, you pretend or at least imply you understand the science (actually theory) behind Krauss' statement well enough that you can digest it and use it to justify your belief that something came from nothing, but just like Rt 70 you refuse to even demonstrate such knowledge or ability.  A science teacher would tell you "show your work", and that's all I am asking.

And as a sidenote, many religious people admit that they don't have all the answers.  Humility is inherent to Christianity and Christ's teaching.  Some don't match up to the standard, but there are always outliers to any system.

 

[Route_70]

just like Rt 70 you refuse to even demonstrate such knowledge or ability.  A science teacher would tell you "show your work", and that's all I am asking.

ALAYzMAN, you have demonstrated that you cannot read.  Or don't read.  I have plainly said that I am not a scientist.  All I know I have read about.  I have watched video lectures on the Stanford website; MIT website; Cal Berkley website.  They all have Youtube channels where they upload their lectures.  MIT has made available for free many of their professors written notes and class lectures.

I have spent, as I said, the past 25 years or so reading about, watching video lectures about, these things.  I can't "show my work."  It is not my work.

I find the science of the nucleus of an atom to be fascinating.  I don't have to Google this:  A proton can degrade into a neutron and a positron and a neutrino.  The combined mass of the pieces weigh more than the original!  Likewise, a neutron can degrade into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino, all of which weigh more than the original particle.

Particles are not solid things: they are waves in a field.  The Higgs boson is not a particle it is a wave, a disturbance in a field.

A proton, when split, reveals three quarks:  two "up" quarks and one "down" quark.  An up quark has a spin of +2/3; a down quark has a spin of -(1/3).  Summed together, the total spin of a proton is +1.  A nuetron is composed of three quarks:  one "up" and two "down."  Their sum is zero, which is the spin of a neutron.

Quarks are held together by gluons.  Protons and neutrons are held together my muons.

The most popular current theory as to what is the composition of a quark is string theory.  Strings are tiny wisps of energy.  According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, mas and energy are essentially the same thing.  The essence of string theory is that there really is nothing "solid" in the universe.  Everything we see is only "apparent," or an image, created by the interactions of tiny strings of energy.

Sound interesting yet?

 

[ALAYMAN]

just like Rt 70 you refuse to even demonstrate such knowledge or ability.  A science teacher would tell you "show your work", and that's all I am asking.

ALAYzMAN, you have demonstrated that you cannot read.  Or don't read.  I have plainly said that I am not a scientist.  All I know I have read about.  I have watched video lectures on the Stanford website; MIT website; Cal Berkley website.  They all have Youtube channels where they upload their lectures.  MIT has made available for free many of their professors written notes and class lectures.

I have spent, as I said, the past 25 years or so reading about, watching video lectures about, these things.  I can't "show my work."  It is not my work.

I find the science of the nucleus of an atom to be fascinating.  I don't have to Google this:  A proton can degrade into a neutron and a positron and a neutrino.  The combined mass of the pieces weigh more than the original!  Likewise, a neutron can degrade into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino, all of which weigh more than the original particle.

Particles are not solid things: they are waves in a field.  The Higgs boson is not a particle it is a wave, a disturbance in a field.

A proton, when split, reveals three quarks:  two "up" quarks and one "down" quark.  An up quark has a spin of +2/3; a down quark has a spin of -(1/3).  Summed together, the total spin of a proton is +1.  A nuetron is composed of three quarks:  one "up" and two "down."  Their sum is zero, which is the spin of a neutron.

Quarks are held together by gluons.  Protons and neutrons are held together my muons.

The most popular current theory as to what is the composition of a quark is string theory.  Strings are tiny wisps of energy.  According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, mas and energy are essentially the same thing.  The essence of string theory is that there really is nothing "solid" in the universe.  Everything we see is only "apparent," or an image, created by the interactions of tiny strings of energy.

Sound interesting yet?

Where'd the quarks and neutrinos come from?

 

[Route_70]

Where'd the quarks and neutrinos come from?

Good!  That is how a scientist thinks!  That is the very work that is going on at CERN.

By the way, according to those who study such things, the sun spews out countless trillions of neutrinos every second, sending 65 billion neutrinos shooting through your body every second!

 

[ALAYMAN]

Where'd the quarks and neutrinos come from?

Good!  That is how a scientist thinks!  That is the very work that is going on at CERN.

By the way, according to those who study such things, the sun spews out countless trillions of neutrinos every second, sending 65 billion neutrinos shooting through your body every second!

I am a gamma spectroscopist, I ain't skeered of no zoomies.  I measure them.

And where did the sun come from?

 

[Route_70]

I am a gamma spectroscopist

Let me guess:  You are a technician in a hospital.  You operate the gamma ray camera when someone goes in for a nuclear stress test.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I am a gamma spectroscopist

Let me guess:  You are a technician in a hospital.  You operate the gamma ray camera when someone goes in for a nuclear stress test.

Actually, radioactive thallium is one of the isotopes used in those stress tests, along with technetium, and in the bioassay program (which my facility no longer has the pleasure of overseeing) and  years ago I had to screen worker's urine.  If they forgot to tell the hospital folk that they'd had a stress test when they returned to work then they'd get a false positive for one of the possible contaminants at the nuclear facility I work at.  Of course at that point we'd do further segregation and isotopic separation chemical techniques to ascertain the variety of radioactive contaminants that was the culprit.  But that's a bit more than you really need to know.

Where'd the quarks and sun come from again?

 

[Route_70]

Actually, radioactive thallium is one of the isotopes used in those stress tests, along with technetium, and in the bioassay program (which my facility no longer has the pleasure of overseeing) and  years ago I had to screen worker's urine.  If they forgot to tell the hospital folk that they'd had a stress test when they returned to work then they'd get a false positive for one of the possible contaminants at the nuclear facility I work at.  Of course at that point we'd do further segregation and isotopic separation chemical techniques to ascertain the variety of radioactive contaminants that was the culprit.  But that's a bit more than you really need to know.

In July of 2008 I went to the hospital for a "routine" stress test.  My doctor had ordered a thallium stress test.  I had to skip my morning coffee, and I was not in a good mood.  Anyway, while I was lying under the gamma ray camera, the technician told me: "I don't think you are going home today."

I had a 99% occlusion of the LAD.  Wow!

Where'd the quarks and sun come from again?

I don't know.  But I guess you do.

 

[Gringo]

If at any time in the existence of the universe there was nothing, how did something come from nothing?

It makes absolutely no sense to me to say that there was not a designer; that there was nothing or NOone and still something exploded on its on and became the glorious world and universe that we have today. To me, this is scientific PEER PRESSURE.

I strongly suspect that there is a designer.

But as far as the Big Bang goes, why wouldn't that go hand in hand with Genesis 1:1?  As I understand it, the Hebrew word used there means to make something out of nothing. Why couldn't God have used the Big Bang to create the Universe - creating something out of nothing?

Why couldn't this god, whoever he is or they are,  USED the big bang and then evolution to get to where we are today?  For those of you that believe in the Bible, WHY must what science says, contradict the Bible?  God made something out of nothing.

Ok,

Why couldn't he have done it by the Big bang - which was something coming from nothing?

I don't see the necessity of Biblical believers always being at odds with science when you both are saying the same thing: that something came from nothing.

Scientists believe that something came from nothing and no one

Theists believe that SomeOne created something from nothing. 

It seems like the difference between the two camps is the Source, not the method.









A very reasonable post Gringo, one given from the position of a true AGNOSTIC.  Your point about scientific pressure prophetically is verging on stealing my thunder though.

To answer your question, I am a young earth creationist, but I don't make it a point of dis-fellowship for those who hold to an old earth.  I do think that those who embrace theistic evolution to be potentially bordering on heresy, depending on their particular strain.

All that said, you don't fit the mold for the "something from nothing" demographic.

This thread is already so far from answering Jospeh's question that I would just like to ask you WHY you are a young earth creationist. As a scientifically minded person with great intellect (and I mean that nicely) and with your love for the Bible, what is it about the "young earth" thinking that has convinced you that evolution and the Big Bang is incorrect. Why couldn't they both be correct?

And with all of yours and Route's bantering back and forth, you also believe that the world was created out of nothing - why don't you believe that God could have used the Big Bang.

Obviously, I am not a scientific person AT ALL. And so, I don't pretend to know anything about Neurons and all that boring stuff (give me a painting, a book and a song) but I don't need to,  to wonder why the Great Creator (whoever he is) could not have created the universe in the way that the scientists believe it came about.

Why specifically, are you a "young earth" believer

and

What do you mean I "don't fit the mold"    If an insult is coming, I can take it.


Gringo

 

[ALAYMAN]

This thread is already so far from answering Jospeh's question that I would just like to ask you WHY you are a young earth creationist. As a scientifically minded person with great intellect (and I mean that nicely) and with your love for the Bible, what is it about the "young earth" thinking that has convinced you that evolution and the Big Bang is incorrect. Why couldn't they both be correct?

And with all of yours and Route's bantering back and forth, you also believe that the world was created out of nothing - why don't you believe that God could have used the Big Bang.

Obviously, I am not a scientific person AT ALL. And so, I don't pretend to know anything about Neurons and all that boring stuff (give me a painting, a book and a song) but I don't need to,  to wonder why the Great Creator (whoever he is) could not have created the universe in the way that the scientists believe it came about.

Why specifically, are you a "young earth" believer

and

What do you mean I "don't fit the mold"    If an insult is coming, I can take it.


Gringo

I'll keep this short, but will expand if you'd prefer. 

I was saved as a young adult in a non-denominational church but for all intents and purposes it could be called conservative evangelical, or even fundamental, though not in the Hyles vein of fundamental.  I didn't grow spiritually or theologically there much but as I neared 30 years of age (after having been out of that church or any church for nearly a decade) I began attending a Baptist church where my relative and boss attended.  It was from the fundamentalist tradition you are more familiar with (Lee Roberson, J Frank Norris, etc).  Most of the teaching in such circles will be steeped in new earth fundamentalist creationism. The boss I just mentioned was a really smart Kentuckian (who would fool you if you just listened to his southern draw), and he gave me some ICR (Institution For Creation Research) VHS videos.  They dealt with a variety of topics, including radiometric dating (a VERY close cousin to the field he and I were in for a vocation), rock stratification, etc.  One of those videos showed that after the Mount St Helens volcano eruption there was a mud-flow that carved out a very deep and long "canyon" in a very short time.  If a person didn't know how it was formed in contemporary terms, and came upon it with no knowledge of the mud flow event, they would date the "canyon" to a very old age based on evolutionary type models of earth age dating.  That was pretty influential in my mind.

I said it would be kept to a minimum, so I'll stop there, because I could write a book otherwise.   I hope that answers your question in at least a rudimentary way.  Here's a linkAnswers in Genesis that summarizes the more technical/theological rationale.

In so far as the statement "you ain't cut from that mold" I merely meant you don't believe the insane foolishness that we came from nothing, so you aren't the target of my questioning for a belief system (particularly of our origins as a species).

 

[Gringo]

I have met many people who's lives were changed when they received salvation, but I've never met an atheist whose life was changed for the better because of his belief. The fact that man searches and longs to be loved and share love shows me that we have souls. At the present moment, I'm overhearing 2 young men at a restaurant discussing their souls. They are discussing how to become better husbands and fathers. Wonder where that desire comes from.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People who do not believe what the christian believes, have long been swaddled with accusations of hate (even in this thread) and unhappiness. It's a popular thing to do.

I don't believe what the majority here believe, and yet I, too, want to be a good person, I want to be loved and to love. And if I had a child, I would have wanted to be a good father. It has absolutely nothing to do with being "saved".

There are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists that want those things - in all parts of the world.

I also, suspect that those desires came from from a higher place. There's a billion people that believe the soul came from Allah, peace be upon him. And then there's a billion people that believe that the soul came from Jehovah and then there are those that believe Allah and Jehovah are actually the same (my employer being one of them) and then there are those that believe there is no such thing as a soul and then I, suppose, there are some that might think the Flying Spaghetti Monster might have had something to do with it,  but unlike all those folks, I don't have a claim on that Being. I wouldn't begin to know.  And neither does anyone else.