The Emptiness of Atheism

[ChevyRodeo]

The Emptiness of Atheism

Atheists will often claim there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in a specific deity. Atheists will point to Darwinism, a fairy tail ripe with gaps and contradictions, as some kind of partial explanation for the origin of certain species. But when you dig deep into the core of the atheist philosophy, you will find it is a position that totally lacks any coherent explanation for real mysteries of life.

Let's summarize the Atheistic beliefs

Origin of the universe? I don't know
Origin of the natural laws, such as gravity? I don't know
Origin of life? I don't know
What happens when you die? I don't know
Why is Earth perfectly suited for human life? I don't know
Why does life appear to have been designed? I don't know
Why do people have "built in morals"? I don't know
Why does 99% of the planet have religious convictions? They are deluded

Atheism? I don't think so

 

[Physicist]

The Emptiness of Atheism

Atheists will often claim there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in a specific deity. Atheists will point to Darwinism, a fairy tail ripe with gaps and contradictions, as some kind of partial explanation for the origin of certain species. But when you dig deep into the core of the atheist philosophy, you will find it is a position that totally lacks any coherent explanation for real mysteries of life.

Let's summarize the Atheistic beliefs

Actually, atheism simply refers to a LACK of belief in God(s). It says nothing about what the person does believe and, in fact, the worldviews of atheists are quite varied. To illustrate this point, suppose we group people into two categories, those that like broccoli and those that don't. If someone is in the latter category, you don't know anything about what they do like to eat.

I will answer your points from my worldview as a Physicist

Origin of the universe? I don't know

Actually, we know even less. We don't know if the Universe had an origin.

Origin of the natural laws, such as gravity? I don't know

Natural laws, or rather our theories about the behavior of the Universe (laws are subsets of theories), are simply our best existing models that predict that behavior with the fewest number of arbitrary parameters. These models change. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity is a much different model than the more accurate General Theory of relativity. Its a safe bet, that Einstein's model will be superceded by a better model some day. So, the answer to your question is that natural laws are invented by scientists to best describe observed reality.

Origin of life? I don't know

This is as much a historical, as a scientific question. They are several competing hypotheses for origin of life on earth. Detereming which one is the path that life actually took will take some scientific sleuthing.

What happens when you die? I don't know

You won't like the answer. Your body breaks down into components by natural decay. There is zero evidence to support the hypothesis of life after death.

Why is Earth perfectly suited for human life? I don't know

This one you have backwards. You might as well ask why does the Mississippi river manage to go by so many towns. The river was first and the towns were then built. Similarly, life evolved the way it did to meet the conditions of earth, not the other way around.

Why does life appear to have been designed? I don't know

Life does not appear to be externally designed. In fact. most of your DNA is classified as 'junk' DNA that may have served some purpose in the past but has since ceased to perform a useful function. I suggest you ignore Creationist propaganda and get a good introductory biology book.

Why do people have "built in morals"? I don't know

There are some good introductory books on this to explain it to the non-Anthropologist. I recommend Shermers, "The Science of Good and Evil."

Why does 99% of the planet have religious convictions? They are deluded

You numbers are wrong. Especially in the more civilized parts of the world such as Western Europe and Japan, atheism predominates.

Atheism? I don't think so

That is your choice but you should make it an informed decision.

 

[Orion]

Actually, though I tried for years [earnestly], . . . christianity left me empty.

But as the post above mine points out, . . . . there ARE answers beyond "I don't know". But even if there weren't, . . . an "I don't know" answer isn't at all negative. It means that the answer is yet to be discovered. . . . . What it doesn't at all mean is that, by default, "christianity is true". Just a friendly

 

[jasoncran]

Aethistic japan was the cause of much suffering during ww2. Jigorano Kano the man the founded judo and mma and bjj owe him much, so that Japan was going to an athestic state and wanted to use Judo/taoism to counter that movement in japan. He also protested Japan participation in the olympics as he wanted judo to represent an enlighted state not the imperial japan that he saw around him.

 

[azlan88]

Orion, you said that Christianity left you empty. Since you have left Christianity, has that empty void been filled to you?

 

[AAA]

Very nice post Physicist.

 

[DarcyLu]

Physicist, have you ever considered how the writers of the Bible knew these facts, all from the Old Testament:

Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth"
Isaiah knew the earth was round

Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing"
Job knew the earth is suspended

Job 26:8 "He wraps up the waters in His clouds and the cloud does not burst under them"
water in the clouds

Psalm 8:8 "and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas."
currents

Ecc 1:7 "Ecclesiastes 1:7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
water cycle and evaporation

 

[Ramsey]

Actually, we know even less. We don't know if the Universe had an origin.

Thomas Aquinas, working off the works of plato, addressed this. Basically, it is unreasonable to believe that the universe just came into existance, or that it has been around for eternity. There had to be a first mover. Someone or something to set the universe in motion, and get everything started. A baseball doesn't just start moving by itself, and niether could the universe. Something had to put it in motion. What is the first mover? God.

If you argue with enough Athiests, you find that usually they do have an answer for most those questions, there answers mostly involve around chance. Chance started the universe, by chance life evolved on earth, etc, etc. Laws of probability.

 

[Physicist]

Aristotlean physics has been replaced

Actually, we know even less. We don't know if the Universe had an origin.

Thomas Aquinas, working off the works of plato, addressed this. Basically, it is unreasonable to believe that the universe just came into existance, or that it has been around for eternity. There had to be a first mover. Someone or something to set the universe in motion, and get everything started. A baseball doesn't just start moving by itself, and niether could the universe. Something had to put it in motion. What is the first mover? God.

If you argue with enough Athiests, you find that usually they do have an answer for most those questions, there answers mostly involve around chance. Chance started the universe, by chance life evolved on earth, etc, etc. Laws of probability.

We have learned a lot about the natural world since Thomas Aquinas. We don't use Aristotlean physics any more. Aristotle (and Aquinas) thought that if you didn't have a force on an object, it would stop. He was wrong, as Newton demonstrated. As near as we can determine, the net average energy of the Universe has remained constant for all time. Energy may change form (motion, potential energy, mass) but the net sum stays the same.

One thing Newton got wrong, as do most non-scientists today, is the concept of relative space-time. According to the General Theory of Relativity, there is no absolute space and time into which the Universe came into being at the Big Bang. Rather, space-time is a property of the Universe with a singularity at the Big Bang. There is no 'time' before the Big Bang. The Big Bang defines a lower time bound just as c (speed of light) defines an upper limit on speed, zero Kelvin defines a limit on temperature, and the Plank scale defines a limit on spatial division.To answer your question, modern physics would say that the Universe has always been in motion at all times. Whether the Universe is connected to something larger than itself, such as the Multiverse, or some Divine Creator remains in the category of speculation.

 

[Physicist]

Physicist, have you ever considered how the writers of the Bible knew these facts, all from the Old Testament:

Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth"
Isaiah knew the earth was round

Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing"
Job knew the earth is suspended

Job 26:8 "He wraps up the waters in His clouds and the cloud does not burst under them"
water in the clouds

Psalm 8:8 "and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas."
currents

Ecc 1:7 "Ecclesiastes 1:7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
water cycle and evaporation

I think we have to realize that the OT writers were more poet than scientist and we need take their language in the figurative, rather than literal, sense. Thus Job speaks about the earth hanging on nothing while at the same time talking about the pillars that hold it up ( Job, Chapter 38). Isaiah, in several places, uses the Babylonian three-tiered Universe (heaven above, earth, and gehenna below) to make his spiritual points.

What you will not find in the Bible is a description of the earth as a sphere (dur in Hebrew). In fact, the author of Matthew mistakenly thinks that if you go up to a high enough mountain, you can see all the cities of the earth. True for a flat earth but false for a spherical planet. Does this decrease any moral guidance found in the text? Only if you insist on using the Bible as a science book.

 

[Cornelius]

You won't like the answer. Your body breaks down into components by natural decay. There is zero evidence to support the hypothesis of life after death.

In all fairness there is also no evidence to the contrary.

Most cultures however do have people who related near death experiences. I do realize that , that would raise questions in a scientific mind and that in itself would not be considered evidence.

Somebody posted on another thread that Christianity in itself is like a science experiment. Faith is something that works for some people in a way that we call "miraculous" But not for all. So , some people have the correct "formula" and some do not. We learn by experimentation. We put it to the test.

I for one, believe that true Christianity is very much based on science, all though maybe a science that is not seen as science yet. Scientists too have changed their ideas as time moved on.A flat earth became a sphere. Holes in the sky became stars. One thing they have ignored is what the Bible calls "spirit'. Whne this eventually gets included in science, I believe more things will make sense. The "particle" or the "wave", depends on your belief. etc.

Christianity speaks of meta-systems, even in a way that science does not yet see it. Thought , related to gravity, focussed through such a meta-system , has power. First mentioned in the story of the Tower of Babel. A joining of minds , a force known to some, was disrupted by God. Why? Because they would be able to attain to God-like power.
Another "meta-system" is the Body of Christ. Where we can see that the Bible teaches the "agreement", the focussing of truth, the "becoming one" as the key to manifesting the power of God (nothing shall be impossible) whereas schism is seen a "heresy". (A kingdom divided shall fall )

Hidden in spiritual language and historical events, is a science , yet to be discovered. This science is about what happens when we focus truth onto a situation that is out of kilter (like sickness) Focussed truth changes physical realities. Man calls this a miracle.

 

[Cornelius]

From a Noetic Science experiment in 1988:

The human soul weighs 1/3,000th of an ounce!

That’s the astonishing claim of East German researchers who recently weighed more than 200 terminally ill patients just before, and immediately after, their deaths.

In each case the weight loss was exactly the same–1/3,000th of an ounce.

“The inescapable conclusion is that we have now confirmed the existence of the human soul and determined its weight,†Dr. Becker Mertens of Dresden said in a letter printed in the German science journal Horizon.

“The challenge before us now is to figure out exactly what the soul is composed ofâ€, he continued. “We are inclined to believe that it is a form of energy. “But our attempts to identify this energy have been unsuccessful to date.â€

The expert’s report, co-authored by physicist Elke Fisher, got mixed review from top scientists around the world. Gerard Voisart, the leading French pathologist, was especially critical, saying that the weight difference between the living and the dead could be accounted for by air leaving the lungs. But Drs. Fisher and Mertens said they took that into account in making their calculations. They further stated that the device they used to weigh the soul has a margin of error of less than 1/100,000th of an ounce.

“It occurred to us that the weight loss could be the result of an instantaneous physical deterioration,†said Dr. Fisher. “But after exhaustive study we agreed that was not the case. The only possible explanation is that we were measuring the loss of the human soul or some kind of life force.â€



The communist scientists were careful not to link their study of the soul with a superior being or with afterlife. But church leaders contacted by the European press said the experts’ report confirmed the existence of God and heaven–and praised their breakthrough research.

“It’s ironic that communist scientists would conduct a search for the soul, much less declare that they found it,†said one clergyman.

more here .....: http://www.noeticsciences.co.uk/weighti ... uman-soul/

 

[Cornelius]

Disclaimer: I am not a follower of Noetic Science. I do think that they are looking in the right direction, but are departing from the wrong platform. They are going to miss it again because they are basically New Age in their thinking.

Truth has its own protection system built into it. I find it amazing how perfectly secure powerful knowledge is displayed by God in plain open view. Everybody can see it, and yet not everybody sees it in the true sense of seeing. The Bible calls it "letter" and "spirit". See, the true message is hidden in the spirit of the words. Its just floating inside the written words.Most people can only see the written word and cannot see the spirit of the words. Perfectly hidden. There is a key: Prayer. Again the key is wonderful in design, because only those who believe can pray ! So the key is safe and cannot be abused. The knowledge is safe, because without the key, we cannot open it.

That is why I can write this, and the power that is locked inside the Truth cannot be accessed for evil.There are other keys or doors as well. Just like an ancient treasure hunt , the casual seeker is prevented by certain systems from entering. Unity, humility are both doors. Seemingly simply and ordinary, but powerful in their purpose. They are able to safeguard the Treasure, because you cannot fake them.

When Jesus prayed: Father let them be one as We are one. He was praying a Key. Without this, there is no meta-system and no power.Again, the power is safe without this.

I find God's wisdom astounding . Its so perfect in all its ways.

 

[DarcyLu]

Physicist, have you ever considered how the writers of the Bible knew these facts, all from the Old Testament:

Isaiah 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth"
Isaiah knew the earth was round

Job 26:7 "He stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing"
Job knew the earth is suspended

Job 26:8 "He wraps up the waters in His clouds and the cloud does not burst under them"
water in the clouds

Psalm 8:8 "and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas."
currents

Ecc 1:7 "Ecclesiastes 1:7 All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.
water cycle and evaporation

I think we have to realize that the OT writers were more poet than scientist and we need take their language in the figurative, rather than literal, sense. Thus Job speaks about the earth hanging on nothing while at the same time talking about the pillars that hold it up ( Job, Chapter 38). Isaiah, in several places, uses the Babylonian three-tiered Universe (heaven above, earth, and gehenna below) to make his spiritual points.

What you will not find in the Bible is a description of the earth as a sphere (dur in Hebrew). In fact, the author of Matthew mistakenly thinks that if you go up to a high enough mountain, you can see all the cities of the earth. True for a flat earth but false for a spherical planet. Does this decrease any moral guidance found in the text? Only if you insist on using the Bible as a science book.

the Bible is not a science book, yet it does compliment science. as a scientist, you must realize the huge number to the nth power of life just happening by chance to occur on a planet that just happens to be in the perfect locale in the universe. the number is astronomical.

 

[Orion]

Orion, you said that Christianity left you empty. Since you have left Christianity, has that empty void been filled to you?

I used "empty" because it was used in the title. What it more accurate is that when I searched/looked, I found nothing. When a person looks for something, yet never finds it, . . . it is rather foolish to continue looking, . . . especially when the evidence is basically devoid of it [that's being sought after]. I am not really searching any specific thing out, at this time. If something comes along, that makes sense, or is actually real for me, then I may go for that. As for "being empty", . . . there's a small void, but it is getting smaller as time goes by.

the Bible is not a science book, yet it does compliment science. as a scientist, you must realize the huge number to the nth power of life just happening by chance to occur on a planet that just happens to be in the perfect locale in the universe. the number is astronomical.

What few places may seem like "complimenting science", they are overrun by many more instances and passages that are completely error filled.

As for the astronomical probability of life happening, . . . .that may be true, . . . . but that doesn't mean that any specific religion is [by default] automatically true.

 

[Physicist]

scientific skepticism

From a Noetic Science experiment in 1988:

The human soul weighs 1/3,000th of an ounce!

That’s the astonishing claim of East German researchers who recently weighed more than 200 terminally ill patients just before, and immediately after, their deaths.

In each case the weight loss was exactly the same–1/3,000th of an ounce.

“The inescapable conclusion is that we have now confirmed the existence of the human soul and determined its weight,†Dr. Becker Mertens of Dresden said in a letter printed in the German science journal Horizon.

“The challenge before us now is to figure out exactly what the soul is composed ofâ€, he continued. “We are inclined to believe that it is a form of energy. “But our attempts to identify this energy have been unsuccessful to date.â€

The expert’s report, co-authored by physicist Elke Fisher, got mixed review from top scientists around the world. Gerard Voisart, the leading French pathologist, was especially critical, saying that the weight difference between the living and the dead could be accounted for by air leaving the lungs. But Drs. Fisher and Mertens said they took that into account in making their calculations. They further stated that the device they used to weigh the soul has a margin of error of less than 1/100,000th of an ounce.

“It occurred to us that the weight loss could be the result of an instantaneous physical deterioration,†said Dr. Fisher. “But after exhaustive study we agreed that was not the case. The only possible explanation is that we were measuring the loss of the human soul or some kind of life force.â€



The communist scientists were careful not to link their study of the soul with a superior being or with afterlife. But church leaders contacted by the European press said the experts’ report confirmed the existence of God and heaven–and praised their breakthrough research.

“It’s ironic that communist scientists would conduct a search for the soul, much less declare that they found it,†said one clergyman.

more here .....: http://www.noeticsciences.co.uk/weighti ... uman-soul/

Here is where one has to exercise his/her scientific skepticism. Sometimes, scientific claims are not substantiated by peer review. Remember polywater, cold fusion, and Martian fossils, to name a few. I am not familiar with this journal but the article said the claim was in a letter to the journal, not a peer reviewed article. Anyone can write a letter to the editor.

 

[Rick W]

Please return to the topic as the discussion is going in the direction of a topic that should be discussed in the science forum.
thanks all

 

[Ramsey]

We have learned a lot about the natural world since Thomas Aquinas. We don't use Aristotlean physics any more. Aristotle (and Aquinas) thought that if you didn't have a force on an object, it would stop. He was wrong, as Newton demonstrated. As near as we can determine, the net average energy of the Universe has remained constant for all time. Energy may change form (motion, potential energy, mass) but the net sum stays the same.

One thing Newton got wrong, as do most non-scientists today, is the concept of relative space-time. According to the General Theory of Relativity, there is no absolute space and time into which the Universe came into being at the Big Bang. Rather, space-time is a property of the Universe with a singularity at the Big Bang. There is no 'time' before the Big Bang. The Big Bang defines a lower time bound just as c (speed of light) defines an upper limit on speed, zero Kelvin defines a limit on temperature, and the Plank scale defines a limit on spatial division.To answer your question, modern physics would say that the Universe has always been in motion at all times. Whether the Universe is connected to something larger than itself, such as the Multiverse, or some Divine Creator remains in the category of speculation.

First you say that there is no space-time prior to the big bang, which is correct, because there is no movement in the universe to base time off of. Then you said that the universe has always been in motion at all times. You are contradicting yourself. Regardless, you did point out that, yes, there was a first mover but what exactly that was we can't prove.

 

[Rick W]

Please return to the topic as the discussion is going in the direction of a topic that should be discussed in the science forum.
thanks all

 

[Physicist]

You won't like the answer. Your body breaks down into components by natural decay. There is zero evidence to support the hypothesis of life after death.

In all fairness there is also no evidence to the contrary.

Most cultures however do have people who related near death experiences. I do realize that , that would raise questions in a scientific mind and that in itself would not be considered evidence.

Somebody posted on another thread that Christianity in itself is like a science experiment. Faith is something that works for some people in a way that we call "miraculous" But not for all. So , some people have the correct "formula" and some do not. We learn by experimentation. We put it to the test.

I for one, believe that true Christianity is very much based on science, all though maybe a science that is not seen as science yet. Scientists too have changed their ideas as time moved on.A flat earth became a sphere. Holes in the sky became stars. One thing they have ignored is what the Bible calls "spirit'. Whne this eventually gets included in science, I believe more things will make sense. The "particle" or the "wave", depends on your belief. etc.

Christianity speaks of meta-systems, even in a way that science does not yet see it. Thought , related to gravity, focussed through such a meta-system , has power. First mentioned in the story of the Tower of Babel. A joining of minds , a force known to some, was disrupted by God. Why? Because they would be able to attain to God-like power.
Another "meta-system" is the Body of Christ. Where we can see that the Bible teaches the "agreement", the focussing of truth, the "becoming one" as the key to manifesting the power of God (nothing shall be impossible) whereas schism is seen a "heresy". (A kingdom divided shall fall )

Hidden in spiritual language and historical events, is a science , yet to be discovered. This science is about what happens when we focus truth onto a situation that is out of kilter (like sickness) Focussed truth changes physical realities. Man calls this a miracle.

Certainly religion has inspired scientific inquiry by some individuals. Gellman labeled his quark model 'the eight-fold way' after Buddhist terminology. Nor can we rule out that new models of the Universe will replace our existing ideas. History tells us that this is almost inevitable. However, there are many tales in the Bible, that if taken literally, contradict scientific facts. The age of the earth, The Tower of Babel as a reason for languages, and the Universal Flood come to mind. Many liberal Christians have no problem with accepting the symbolic meaning of these stories while understanding that they are not literally true.

With regard to your suggestion that we seek new scientific understanding from the Bible. Perhaps you are right. Fortunately, mankind has developed the scientific method to test such proposals, whatever the source of inspiration. I did my thesis many years ago by proposing a new interpretation of quantum mechanics, based upon the same mathematics used to describe the movement of dust in the atmosphere. It worked perfectly for one particle but failed for two or more. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Best Regards,

Physicist