This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[Grumblenuts]

"This is what atheist believe":​

a·the·ist
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

27 definitions of atheist

The following is reprinted with permission from Mr. Wall’s Sept. 14 column “An Atheist in Illinois” at Chicagonow.com. By James Kirk Wall   1. Atheist: No belief in god.

ffrf.org

 

[edthecynic]

The universe is ENERGY which can neither be created nor destroyed, AKA, the PROVEN first law of thermodynamics.

Where did the energy come from?

What do you think "can be neither created nor destroyed" means?
Since that is obviously beyond your kin, I will tell you,
Energy IS!

 

[Mac-7]

That I don't know doesn't terrify me.

Nor does it bother me that you dont know

 

[Grumblenuts]

The universe is ENERGY which can neither be created nor destroyed, AKA, the PROVEN first law of thermodynamics.

Where did the energy come from?

I find the notion of net conservation most useful when considering the First Law. Say you light a fire and it heats your house. Destroy some logs -- mass -- simultaneously create heat energy. Similar energy exchange occurs everywhere all the time. Yes, zero net quantitative mass/energy change relative to the universe (presuming it a closed system), but who the hell really knows? We can't test the entire universe. So the actual important take away is energy (and matter) constantly being "created" and "destroyed" simultaneously and at the same time too. I kid, but this sort of understanding is essential to human progress.

 

[zaangalewa]

Would you hate it to meet your sisters and brothers and your smart phone there again?

You obviously never read the bible, no surprise there. There will be no reunions in heaven.

Not? But what if you will meet your sisters and brothers there? Would you love it or would you hate it?

 

[zaangalewa]

The universe is ENERGY which can neither be created nor destroyed, AKA, the PROVEN first law of thermodynamics.

Where did the energy come from?

What do you think "can be neither created nor destroyed" means?
Since that is obviously beyond your kin, I will tell you,
Energy IS!

But all negative and positive energy of the universe together is 0. So if you would be outside of the universe (What's impossible because you are always in the center of the universe - as every other point of the universe) it would perhaps only be a nothing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What the universe actually is, is not known

Actually it is well known, How is it that YOU don't know?????

Well, it isn't known.

We can't comprehend what the universe is.

The universe could be the equivalent of an atom somewhere else. It's a lot of energy just like an atom, and that's what we are. And there could be trillions upon trillions of universes in a multiverse. We could be one part of a dog.

You just admitted you know what you say is not known!!!!!

No.....

What I'm saying is there are billions of possibilities. We KNOW we can't comprehend what is out there. See the words "could be"??? It's a dead give away.....

What you're saying is "we know this shit" and I'm saying "We don't know this shit"

You haven't proven you know this shit, mostly because it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to know this shit

You admitted the universe is ENERGY a lot of it in fact to quote you. You can't backtrack now.

Why would I need to backtrack?

I'm beyond confused. What the fuck are you talking about? Could be anything. I have no clue. Get your argument together quick, I don't have the patience to talk about such a topic at this infantile level.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Far as "Where did the energy come from?" Always been here makes the most sense. I picture the Big Bang occurring after a long period without sex, oops, activity. Black holes gradually consume all remaining matter until only energy "potential" remains. The Aether vibrating at some mixture of low frequencies. Eventually a standing wave pattern develops creating a tremendous dipole somewhere towards the middle that bursts into one kickass static electrical discharge -- BANG!

 

[frigidweirdo]

"This is what atheist believe":​

a·the·ist
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

27 definitions of atheist

The following is reprinted with permission from Mr. Wall’s Sept. 14 column “An Atheist in Illinois” at Chicagonow.com. By James Kirk Wall   1. Atheist: No belief in god.

ffrf.org

I'd say the true meaning is "believes God or gods don't exist".

Because "non-religious" would be "lack belief".

There's a big difference.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'd say the true meaning is "believes God or gods don't exist".

Because "non-religious" would be "lack belief".

There's a big difference.

I agree there's a difference and still prefer the dictionary definition. "Lacks belief" is time tested and covers more ground, imo. It also allows tent room for agnostics. I don't personally believe in gods, spirits, magic, ghosts, etc. Nor do I believe any faith based religious dogma. I just don't have any particular bone to pick with those who do until they start attacking and proselytizing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'd say the true meaning is "believes God or gods don't exist".

Because "non-religious" would be "lack belief".

There's a big difference.

I agree there's a difference and still prefer the dictionary definition. "Lacks belief" is time tested and covers more ground, imo. It also allows tent room for agnostics. I don't personally believe in gods, spirits, magic, ghosts, etc. Nor do I believe any faith based religious dogma. I just don't have any particular bone to pick with those who do until they start attacking and proselytizing.

Well, an agnostic is an non-believer.

But we have the word "agnostic" we have the word "non-believer", why do we need the word "atheist" to mean "agnostic" and "non-believer" when there'd be no word for someone who "believes there is no God or gods"???

Doesn't really make sense.

 

[DudleySmith]

All just a matter of word definitions. As an atheist, I don't have to believe in the Darwin cult or the modern 'evolution is proven science!' myth any more than I have to believe in Marxism, Zeus, or Biden. I have no problems at all with early Hebrew religion or Christianity either; they both have a lot of fine philosophy and logic to offer, and their influence is an overall great positive for those cultures it became dominant in. I'm also fine with how Thomas of Aquina defined 'God' in his 'Five Ways' and in his great teaching text the Summa Theologica.

 

[Blues Man]

The universe is ENERGY which can neither be created nor destroyed, AKA, the PROVEN first law of thermodynamics.

Where did the energy come from?

What do you think "can be neither created nor destroyed" means?
Since that is obviously beyond your kin, I will tell you,
Energy IS!

But all negative and positive energy of the universe together is 0. So if you would be outside of the universe (What's impossible because you are always in the center of the universe - as every other point of the universe) it would perhaps only be a nothing.

The sum of all matter ( mass) and energy is zero.

Mass can be transformed into energy and vice versa.

Mass & Energy: One And The Same

Our Story The Team IFSA Advisory Council

ifsa.my

Think of the big bang as the concentration of all mass and energy that ever existed into a singularity. Since mass and energy can be transformed into one another and that the sum total of mass and energy remains the same it's possible that the singularity was nothing but a state where there was more mass than energy and the big bang was simply the transformation of some of that mass into energy.

It's difficult to imagine the scope of the big bang but we can understand the mass to energy transformation.

The bomb dropped on Nagasaki resulted in a blast equivalent to 21000 tons of TNT. That energy resulted from a mere 1 gram of plutonium being converted to energy.

 

[zaangalewa]

I'd say the true meaning is "believes God or gods don't exist".

Because "non-religious" would be "lack belief".

There's a big difference.

I agree there's a difference and still prefer the dictionary definition. "Lacks belief" is time tested and covers more ground, imo. It also allows tent room for agnostics. I don't personally believe in gods, spirits, magic, ghosts, etc. Nor do I believe any faith based religious dogma. I just don't have any particular bone to pick with those who do until they start attacking and proselytizing.

Well, an agnostic is an non-believer.

But we have the word "agnostic" we have the word "non-believer", why do we need the word "atheist" to mean "agnostic" and "non-believer" when there'd be no word for someone who "believes there is no God or gods"???

Doesn't really make sense.

An agnostics is someone who doesn't know whether god exists or not. Agnosticism was since ever a typical Christian point of view. That's why we say "I believe in god" (Or : "I would wish I could believe in god") and not "I know god". Indeed an agnostics has the free choice: to believe that god exists or to believe god is not existing. He has not the choice to be a not-believer, although the English culture prefers this wrong point of view on mysterious reasons.
In modern times it was specially Richard Dawkins - a biologist - who had confused many intelligent and well educated academics with his nonsense, which I could subsumize under the idiotic slogan "the state religion of science has to be atheism". Not to be able to say something about god on reason of an academic profession in natural science means not to have to be an atheist. Natural science is not a natural theology - it's a natural philosophy.

 

[Dusty]

Again it is a fact that atheist believe that nothing created everything. T

No matter how many times you repeat that LIE you will always be a LIAR made in the image of God.

If I lie, then you must know the truth. So let us have it, clowny

Or just admit that atheist believe that they are the product of nothing

It has already been explained to you. You only play dumb so you can continue to LIE.
Again, there is no such thing as NOTHING. God is the only nothing in the universe.

When there was no life the amount of life on Earth would be described as none or nothing. Since we know and you agree that all life is the result of a mating or splitting process then nothing can not create everything when referencing life. You can play dumb for your entire life but you can not make everything appear from nothing. That is certainly not scientific

 

[Dusty]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

You mean as opposed to an old guy with a long beard sitting on a cloud?

What is it with you people and you absolute fixation on what others may or may not believe?
If you are confident in your beliefs you've no need to criticize or question the beliefs of others.
After all, in the end you'll be sipping tea with Jeebers up in heaven while they're waist deep in crap standing on their heads, right?

God may well be a verb meaning seeding life among the universe. So when we go to mars we are practicing God as we will seed life there.

It's all perspective

 

[zaangalewa]

@edthecynic

I had now a lot to think about that something or someone teared a nothing into two parts of a positive and negative energy and used a very little part of this energies (which are not able to be created or to be destroyed anymore) to create something what has only central points in the big dimensions of the spacetime - starting with a first point. I'm not sure whether this is only my personal feeling - but this looks very very god-like, isn't it? Who else or whatelse is able to do such a damn good job?



Licht ist Dein Kleid

Licht ist Dein Kleid, Du bist prächtig geschmückt,
Herrlichkeit öffnet sich meinem Blick.
Am Himmel ein Muster aus Weiß und Blau,
dann wieder rot oder grau.

Wind ist Dein Bote, Feuer Dein Werk,
Wasser im Tal, Schnee am Berg.
Ehrfurcht gebietend auch das Meer,
die Schöpfung erzählt von Dir.

Denn Du bist groß,
hast alles so schön und gut gemacht,
was sagen wir bloß
zu soviel Herrlichkeit und Pracht?

Die Welt ist verstört,
schon lang nicht mehr rein und unberührt,
doch bleibt sie ein Ort,
an dem jeder Suchende Dein Licht
und die Liebe spürt.

Die Erde bringt Fülle von Gras hervor,
Früchte als Nahrung für Mensch und Tier,
Brot für die Stärke, Wein für Genuss,
Öl für den Leib, der gepflegt sein muss.

Bäume und Berge, Sonne und Mond,
halten uns Leib und Seele gesund.
Den Rhythmus des Lebens, Tag und Nacht,
all das hast Du für uns gemacht.

Denn Du bist groß,
hast alles so schön und gut gemacht,
was sagen wir bloß
zu soviel Herrlichkeit und Pracht?

Die Welt ist verstört,
schon lang nicht mehr rein und unberührt,
doch bleibt sie ein Ort,
an dem jeder Suchende Dein Licht
und die Liebe spürt.

Es warten auf Dich alle Wesen der Welt,
ohne Dich sind wir angezählt.
Ohne Dich schwindet die Lebenskraft,
ohne Dein Licht bleibt nur die Nacht.

Doch wehst Du uns an, werden wir neu,
Dein Wind weckt uns auf, die Nacht ist vorbei!
Ich singe von Deiner Herrlichkeit,
staune: Licht ist Dein Kleid.

Denn Du bist groß,
was sagen wir bloß
zu soviel Herrlichkeit und Pracht?

Die Welt ist verstört,
schon lang nicht mehr rein und unberührt,
doch bleibt sie ein Ort,
an dem jeder Suchende Dein Licht
an dem jeder Suchende Dein Licht
an dem jeder Suchende Dein Licht
und die Liebe spürt.

Martin Pepper

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, an agnostic is an non-believer.

But we have the word "agnostic" we have the word "non-believer", why do we need the word "atheist" to mean "agnostic" and "non-believer" when there'd be no word for someone who "believes there is no God or gods"???

Doesn't really make sense.

Different Types of Atheism - dummies

Atheism is a big umbrella. There are about as many ways to disbelieve as there are ways to believe — different degrees, different emphases, and different expres

www.dummies.com

That said, to me anyway, "disbelief" and "non-belief", perhaps to a lesser extent, still connote some action or effort being required. "Lacking" belief, making no knowledge claims, not even claiming any ability to know -- seems passive by comparison. As in quiet or noiseless. A clutter-free room. A sandy beach. A blank canvas. All potential. Zero interference. Peaceful. Inviting.

 

[ding]

Again it is a fact that atheist believe that nothing created everything.

Again, this is a lie.

The thread premise fails as a strawman fallacy.

Again atheist believe that everything came from nothing, so if you do not then you are not an atheist

Amazon product ASIN 1935071238

It's been my experience that most atheists are scared of a universe being created from nothing. It's been a long standing belief by people of faith that God created the universe out of nothing. Like 6,000 years before science proved it.

Creatio ex nihilo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The following is an excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

God creates "out of nothing"

296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.144God creates freely "out of nothing":145

If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.146
297 Scripture bears witness to faith in creation "out of nothing" as a truth full of promise and hope. Thus the mother of seven sons encourages them for martyrdom:

I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws. . . Look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.147
298 Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them,148 and bodily life to the dead through the Resurrection. God "gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist."149 And since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him.150

"It's been a long standing belief by people of faith that God created the universe out of nothing. Like 6,000 years before science proved it."

When did science prove that God created the universe from nothing?

When they proved the universe was created from nothing?

I am not aware that any scientists has ever proven that.

Proving it's not possible for the universe to have always existed proves it. Not to mention that the universe being created from nothing explains everything we see and violates no laws of nature in doing so.

I think you need to face that the universe began. All matter in the universe occupying the space of a single proton should have clued you in.

All the matter in the universe has always existed. That is the simplest and best answer.

The Big Bang propelled everything outward. We have seen that the universe is expanding. And we can prove the rate of expansion is slowing. The best theory is that when it slows to a stop, it will begin to fall back into the center, as gravity brings all the matter back together. When the matter collapses into one spot, it will explode again,and the cycle will continue.

The idea of the big crunch has fallen by the wayside. these days most folks go w/ the idea that an ever expanding universe began at a pinpoint.

Are we together now?

Hey ding I like your new profile

Me too

 

[ding]

Explanations are good. Fairy stories, not so much.

what is your explanation for how and where the Universe came from?

The universe is ENERGY which can neither be created nor destroyed, AKA, the PROVEN first law of thermodynamics.

It's not possible for energy to exist outside of space and time because the presence of energy creates space and time. Therefore it's not possible for energy and matter to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

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.

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 that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.