Can Atheists be Moral?

[ding]

But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?

A three minute video...



or if you prefer... Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws which describes the evolution of the universe describes the creation of the universe which means the laws of nature were in place before the creation of space and time.

That's all very well, Ding.

It depends on your favourite scientist of the day.

No. Not really. You have a better explanation? We know there was a beginning. Why does this disturb you?

 

[ding]

How do you know it hasn't always existed? Are you going to bitch slap me too, for the impertinence of daring to question you?

The short answer? The second law of thermodynamics.

That was a great question BTW.

Tells me nothing.

Our part animal, part lizard brains are programmed for beginnings and endings. Even I can't get my head round 'always was, always is, and will be'. But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?

Ok, long answer....

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Where do morals and atheists come into this?

I don't can't speak for atheists but I think that Ding, a genuine believer, has proven beyond any doubt that he can't be moral if honesty is required.


At least I'm convinced.

Can you tell me why you believe that about me? What exactly have I done? Challenged you? Yes, I can see why that would be morally wrong.

How about you answer those challenging questions I asked.

 

[Mindful]

How do you know it hasn't always existed? Are you going to bitch slap me too, for the impertinence of daring to question you?

The short answer? The second law of thermodynamics.

That was a great question BTW.

Tells me nothing.

Our part animal, part lizard brains are programmed for beginnings and endings. Even I can't get my head round 'always was, always is, and will be'. But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?

Ok, long answer....

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Where do morals and atheists come into this?

I don't can't speak for atheists but I think that Ding, a genuine believer, has proven beyond any doubt that he can't be moral if honesty is required.


At least I'm convinced.

I think he's quite moral.


Underneath

 

[Mindful]

But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?

A three minute video...



or if you prefer... Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws which describes the evolution of the universe describes the creation of the universe which means the laws of nature were in place before the creation of space and time.

That's all very well, Ding.

It depends on your favourite scientist of the day.

No. Not really. You have a better explanation? We know there was a beginning. Why does this disturb you?

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

 

[ding]

The short answer? The second law of thermodynamics.

That was a great question BTW.

Tells me nothing.

Our part animal, part lizard brains are programmed for beginnings and endings. Even I can't get my head round 'always was, always is, and will be'. But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?

Ok, long answer....

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Where do morals and atheists come into this?

I don't can't speak for atheists but I think that Ding, a genuine believer, has proven beyond any doubt that he can't be moral if honesty is required.


At least I'm convinced.

I think he's quite moral.


Underneath

I never claimed to be a saint. The problem is that the people here treat people as if they are all good or all bad. No one is all good or all bad and we shouldn't treat them like they are.

I have a very curious mind and I ask a lot of questions. That disturbs some people. But it's not going to make me stop.

 

[hobelim]

I really don't understand how you or anyone would think that I haven't already openly stated by beliefs especially after you try to discredit them...Am I speaking in a strange language that you don't understand? Having trouble retaining information?

Are you looking for a creed? A manifesto?

lol.. "heads I win tails you lose?"

Find another sucker.

Im not sure why you couldnt answer a direct question with a direct answer, that's all....but it doesnt really matter to me, so. Do you, playboy.

Hey, I was just trying to make a distinction between the creation story in genesis what children were expected to know and what no one can possible know.

I do not like to conflate the two entirely different subjects. One thing has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the other.

So when was the universe created? How was the universe created? Where was God when the universe was created? Did God create the universe? Here's your big opportunity to explain it all.

When was the universe created? It wasn't.

How was it created? It wasn't.

Did God create the universe? No. The universe does not exist.

God created heaven and earth.


Where was God? God was exactly where he is.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Please tell me more. If you can, but I somehow think you can't.

You want to hear some stupid shit?

I have exclusive distribution rights to a holy matzo, directly from the factory in Rome, that I can turn into the flesh of God himself for a nominal service charge of a mere 10% of you income for life, oh, and all your children.

All you have to do is just believe that God loves you, he died for you, and he really really wants you to eat him, and Shazam! You will live forever, (just as soon as you die that is.)

 

[ding]

But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?

A three minute video...



or if you prefer... Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws which describes the evolution of the universe describes the creation of the universe which means the laws of nature were in place before the creation of space and time.

That's all very well, Ding.

It depends on your favourite scientist of the day.

No. Not really. You have a better explanation? We know there was a beginning. Why does this disturb you?

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

 

[ding]

Im not sure why you couldnt answer a direct question with a direct answer, that's all....but it doesnt really matter to me, so. Do you, playboy.

Hey, I was just trying to make a distinction between the creation story in genesis what children were expected to know and what no one can possible know.

I do not like to conflate the two entirely different subjects. One thing has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the other.

So when was the universe created? How was the universe created? Where was God when the universe was created? Did God create the universe? Here's your big opportunity to explain it all.

When was the universe created? It wasn't.

How was it created? It wasn't.

Did God create the universe? No. The universe does not exist.

God created heaven and earth.


Where was God? God was exactly where he is.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Please tell me more. If you can, but I somehow think you can't.

You want to hear some stupid shit?

I have exclusive distribution rights to a holy matzo, directly from the factory in Rome, that I can turn into the flesh of God himself for a nominal service charge of a mere 10% of you income for life, oh, and all your children.

All you have to do is believe and Shazam! You will live forever, (just as soon as you die that is.)

Does that mean you can't tell me why red shift shows galaxies moving away from each other? And why cosmic background radiation shows the remnant of the big bang? And why Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations predict the universe had a beginning?

 

[ding]

Why did GT run off? I thought he really liked this science stuff.

 

[G.T.]

Im not sure why you couldnt answer a direct question with a direct answer, that's all....but it doesnt really matter to me, so. Do you, playboy.

Hey, I was just trying to make a distinction between the creation story in genesis what children were expected to know and what no one can possible know.

I do not like to conflate the two entirely different subjects. One thing has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the other.

So when was the universe created? How was the universe created? Where was God when the universe was created? Did God create the universe? Here's your big opportunity to explain it all.

When was the universe created? It wasn't.

How was it created? It wasn't.

Did God create the universe? No. The universe does not exist.

God created heaven and earth.


Where was God? God was exactly where he is.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Please tell me more. If you can, but I somehow think you can't.

You want to hear some stupid shit?

I have exclusive distribution rights to a holy matzo, directly from the factory in Rome, that I can turn into the flesh of God himself for a nominal service charge of a mere 10% of you income for life, oh, and all your children.

All you have to do is believe and Shazam! You will live forever, (just as soon as you die that is.)

I'd rather hear about the raping and slavery as spoils of war and the torturing of babies due to the sins of their father.

Mebbe sumfin more fun to read about, is how Mary cheated on Joseph and when she became pregnant, Joseph said unto her, "yooo..listen bitch I havent even gotten it in yet, who you been fuckin!!"

Then, with despair, Mary looked to Joseph and said..., "i dunno nigga. god. now fuck off."


And they all broke bread amen.

 

[ding]

 

[G.T.]

Why did GT run off? I thought he really liked this science stuff.

Ding, dont beg honey. I came here today to talk to hobelum. You interjected, I entertained you for a little but your twatty attitude always gets the better of you.

 

[ding]

I called that shit too.

 

[ding]

Why did GT run off? I thought he really liked this science stuff.

Ding, dont beg honey. I came here today to talk to hobelum. You interjected, I entertained you for a little but your twatty attitude always gets the better of you.

Cool story, bro. But if you could hang you would. Please do carry on. It should be entertaining.

 

[G.T.]

Why did GT run off? I thought he really liked this science stuff.

Ding, dont beg honey. I came here today to talk to hobelum. You interjected, I entertained you for a little but your twatty attitude always gets the better of you.

Cool story, bro. But if you could hang you would. Please do carry on. It should be entertaining.

A 60 year old acting like a boastful 15yr old bowling tournament winner is impressive though.

 

[Mindful]

But if there was a beginning, how does your science and second laws of whatevers explain what happened before that beginning?

A three minute video...



or if you prefer... Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws which describes the evolution of the universe describes the creation of the universe which means the laws of nature were in place before the creation of space and time.

That's all very well, Ding.

It depends on your favourite scientist of the day.

No. Not really. You have a better explanation? We know there was a beginning. Why does this disturb you?

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

You use the wrong words. I question it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not nean there's no such thing.

 

[G.T.]

A three minute video...



or if you prefer... Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws which describes the evolution of the universe describes the creation of the universe which means the laws of nature were in place before the creation of space and time.

That's all very well, Ding.

It depends on your favourite scientist of the day.

No. Not really. You have a better explanation? We know there was a beginning. Why does this disturb you?

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

You use the wrong words. I question it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not nean there's no such thing.

Something fun to read about is A-theory and B-theory of time.

 

[ding]

A three minute video...



or if you prefer... Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws which describes the evolution of the universe describes the creation of the universe which means the laws of nature were in place before the creation of space and time.

That's all very well, Ding.

It depends on your favourite scientist of the day.

No. Not really. You have a better explanation? We know there was a beginning. Why does this disturb you?

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

You use the wrong words. I question it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not nean there's no such thing.

Which wrong words did I use?

 

[ding]

Why did GT run off? I thought he really liked this science stuff.

Ding, dont beg honey. I came here today to talk to hobelum. You interjected, I entertained you for a little but your twatty attitude always gets the better of you.

Cool story, bro. But if you could hang you would. Please do carry on. It should be entertaining.

A 60 year old acting like a boastful 15yr old bowling tournament winner is impressive though.

I'm just calling it like it is. Every single time you get confronted with something you have no good answer for and it threatens your bias, you make some BS excuse blaming me and run away. If you behave like that in the real world, you probably have a lot of drama in your life.

Your ego makes snowflakes look like tungsten.

 

[Mindful]

That's all very well, Ding.

It depends on your favourite scientist of the day.

No. Not really. You have a better explanation? We know there was a beginning. Why does this disturb you?

When you start talking like that, I lose interest.

Who said it disturbs me? I didn't.

It seems to me that you are reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning. Many people are. Not because of the data but because of the implication.

You use the wrong words. I question it. And because of my primitive pea brain, as I've explained already, (do you read, and retain?) I can only think in terms of beginnings and endings. I can't grasp the concept of eternity. But that does not nean there's no such thing.

Which wrong words did I use?

Stop it!