Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[We Never Know]

Maybe you should pay more attention and also read, and comprehend, the part where I also explain WHY it is worthy to explore, as opposed to religious claims.

Post 701 wasn't even written by me.

It was 701. Some must have been deleted. It's better to quote it anyway.

So, does this mean that you acknowledge that propositions like the multiverse, play in an entirely different league then propositions like the gods of theism?

As in: the first is worthy to explore while in the second, there isn't even anything to really explore?

So I ask again, if there are things outside the observable universe, how do you deem which is worthy to explore and which isn't?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is ongoing process, have nothing to do with 'fail'. We are different species now than we were a few thousand years ago. Majority of humanity have different consciousness now.

Citation needed. I guess I failed to realize you had a working time machine, and could go back in time to check....

... my bad.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Oh, boy...watch your mail box, evidence is coming in a big brown box.

riiiiight.... and all politicians are both honest, and want what's best for all of us...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It is not God but human 'experts' interpretations create contradictions.

Citation needed. But you are one of these 'experts', naturally.

Ain't that convenient? That your concept of 'god' is the right one, out of thousands?

Wait. How does a person tell which 'god' is the right god?

Serious question-- I've asked this of many-- most reply with "you have to have faith".

... sure, but--- with faith, you can literally believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and there is just as much 'evidence' for FSM as any

So again-- how do YOU know you got the right one?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

We deal with spiritual science, different beliefs is what is expected. One needs to understand but it takes certain level of spirituality (not very high) to understand it.

"spiritual science" is an oxymoron.

There is zero science in all things "spiritual"... by definition of both words.

Science is blind to things which are not based in reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can misinterpret meaning but I know where it comes from.

How do you know where it comes from? Can you be mistaken about that? How can you find out if you are mistaken about that?

See, here's the problem. You keep repeating your assertion that you "just know". Several times hinted that you even know with certainty, as in: you can't be wrong.

How do you know that you can't be wrong?
How could you find out if you are wrong?

You agree other people can be wrong about exactly the same kind of claims, but concerning their particular gods. So why couldn't you?

True God is only one, so, really no need in" you happen to believe in".

Many people believe in many different gods (and are also quite certain those gods are communicating with them), and yours isn't special just because you happen to believe in that one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nice waffle. The fact remains your posts, and not just to me, are clearly indicative of a person who is angry, pushing an agenda and tends to make assumptions against others who disagree with him to the slightest degree. In short, you don't ask questions, you make accusations.

Whatever. If you say so. I think people can read the posts in question and come to the obvious conclusion.

I'll just end with: if you don't want people to draw incorrect conclusions, maybe don't post ambigous things that seem to say a certain thing, but not really. Try to be clear instead and stuff like that won't happen, or at least not frequently.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So I ask again, if there are things outside the observable universe, how do you deem which is worthy to explore and which isn't?

Here's what I said a few posts before that:

Let me start with the disclaimer that I am not a theoretical physicist, nore even anything close to that...
So what I'm saying/ know on the topic is limited to the extend of what I learned from watching talks from physicists like Krauss and Brian Greene, who try and explain physics in layman terms.

To paraphrase Krauss on your very question:

The multiverse is not something we dreamt up out of the blue... we've been driven to it. We've been driven to it, by the mathematics, the predictions of models like inflation theory, string theory, quantum mechanics... and some of us have been driven there kicking and screaming, like me. Because I don't even "like" the multiverse idea, I think it is ugly and unelegant. But, here we are, with models of reality that seem to work, and from which predictions of a multiverse naturally flow - it's inescapable. So, while these models are far from conclusive at this point, I'm willing to explore that. Not because I want to, but because I have to. Because as a scientist, I need to go where the evidence is leading me.

So your question is, how does one deem wich ideas concerning "outside the universe" are worthy to explore?

Well... it's explained in Krauss's paraphrase: those that are well motivated.
A multiverse is well motivated. The multiverse is a prediction of several hypothesis / theories at the frontier of theoretical physics. These are theories that are not about "outside the universe". They are models addressing the universe itself, to try and explain its nature, its makeup. These models happen to predict a multiverse.

The prediction of a multiverse cannot be tested. We can't gauge "outside" the universe. But those models make other predictions wich CAN be tested, at least in principle.

So, like Krauss said, if you have a model that makes 100 predictions, 99 of which are testable... and all 99 pass the tests with flying colours, then it's quite likely that the one untestable prediction is also accurate.

Religious claims are nothing like that.

To "explore the multiverse", means to dig deeper into those models that predict the multiverse. And as said, these models deal with the actual universe we find ourselves in. So there are things to study and test.

What's there to study and test with religious claims of the supernatural?​

 

[Road Warrior]

Whatever. If you say so. I think people can read the posts in question and come to the obvious conclusion.

I'll just end with: if you don't want people to draw incorrect conclusions, maybe don't post ambigous things that seem to say a certain thing, but not really. Try to be clear instead and stuff like that won't happen, or at least not frequently.

I'm counting on it. Have really awesome day, Taglia!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

[I don't expect you to actually address this argument - what parts you agree with, which you disagree with, and why]

Yes, if you keep reinterpreting scripture to conform with the new science, then your religion won't contradict science, but you'll need to stay current in science.

Regarding being a literal reader, prose is intended to be understood literally, and the Christian Bible is said to be a guide for living. It would be absurd to write such things figuratively. It I want to leave instructions as to how my estate is to be handled after my death, or if I want to give you directions to get to my house, or if I want to teach you how to make a certain dish, I'm going to use the clearest language I can : "Go two blocks then turn left at the light" or "slice into the chicken several times, about ½ cm (¼ inch) apart, but only cut about 85% of the way through, leaving the bottom intact," not vague poetic passages or metaphors. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" means whatever you want it to mean, since it has no clear or distinct meaning.

Incidentally, Bible apologists like to tell us that the passages that we know cannot be taken at face value metaphor or allegory, but scripture that is now recognized to be mythology is neither. It's simply the best guesses of an ancient culture that were undoubtedly reported and believed as history and science until that became untenable. Saying that the Bible is wrong isn't an option for the believer, so now, the stories are called metaphor or allegory.

But here's the thing about both of those. They stand for something else, something the writer is aware of. The elements of the Genesis creation myth don't stand for anything, nor were the writers aware of really happened - the singularity, initial temperatures and densities, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before starlight, the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, and the evolution of life. The is no mention of lava, no Great Bombardment, no coalescing dust around early star, no proto-star, no first and second star, no proto-galaxy, no Big Bang. All it seems to have gotten right is that the universe had a beginning - just like every other creation myth.

Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, meaning that its author, Swift, realized that he was writing fiction intended to make a political statement about contemporary England in which each element of the allegory represents something from history known to the author.

"One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to other in this respect.

"This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically its significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted." Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels

That's allegory. The Genesis creation story and the flood story, for example, are not allegories or metaphors, which require that their source understands what the elements in the story actually stand for. They are stories that were wrong. Some of us are free to say as much. Others can't and won't.

I don't expect you to actually address this argument - what parts you agree with, which you disagree with, and why

It is not God but human 'experts' interpretations create contradictions.

Well, you didn't disappoint.

Why do you suppose it is that the only people who can see contradictions and other errors in the Bible are the unbelievers. What is blinding the faith-based thinker from seeing what is so obvious to others.? Is the one group seeing something that is not there, or the other seeing something that isn't?

So many make this claim. But their differing beliefs also refute it. This could just be a common human failure in reasoning. Tell us how does one test such a belief to see if it is rational or not?

Agreed. The fact that those claiming to see something others cannot are unable to agree on what it is that they see belies their delusion.

We deal with spiritual science, different beliefs is what is expected.

As @Subduction Zone indicated, differing beliefs are what betray your claim to this being science or knowledge of any kind.

Imagine a boy with daltonism, or red-green color blindness. People tell him that his socks don’t match even though they look the same to him, and he accepts the fact that he can’t sense some colors that others can.

But as time passes, the boy learns that Santa Claus was a hoax, as was the snipe hunting trip, and 52-card pick-up. So, he begins to wonder if the red-green thing is also some kind of hoax – an elaborate prank. How can he decide whether people are claiming to see something not really there, or if he can’t sense something that is?

Easy. He gets what he has been told are 25 red socks and 25 green socks, which he numbers so that he can tell which is which, and then shows them separately to several people who have not spoken together, people who claim to see red and green as different colors.

He asks them what color is sock number 1, 2, 3, etc., and records their answers. It’s the uniformity of their responses that tells him that they really see these colors. Had this been a hoax, he would expect the answers to be varied.

So, is there really a spiritual science? Let's poll a few of these spiritual scientists, see what they have learned, and compare their answers.

 

[We Never Know]

Here's what I said a few posts before that:

So your question is, how does one deem wich ideas concerning "outside the universe" are worthy to explore?

Well... it's explained in Krauss's paraphrase: those that are well motivated.
A multiverse is well motivated. The multiverse is a prediction of several hypothesis / theories at the frontier of theoretical physics. These are theories that are not about "outside the universe". They are models addressing the universe itself, to try and explain its nature, its makeup. These models happen to predict a multiverse.

The prediction of a multiverse cannot be tested. We can't gauge "outside" the universe. But those models make other predictions wich CAN be tested, at least in principle.

So, like Krauss said, if you have a model that makes 100 predictions, 99 of which are testable... and all 99 pass the tests with flying colours, then it's quite likely that the one untestable prediction is also accurate.

Religious claims are nothing like that.

To "explore the multiverse", means to dig deeper into those models that predict the multiverse. And as said, these models deal with the actual universe we find ourselves in. So there are things to study and test.

What's there to study and test with religious claims of the supernatural?​

I m short on time at the moment so I will keep my post short.

Link me those testable predictions that support multi-universe(s). I'm curious of what predictions have been tested and how.

The big bang is the leading theory. Before that nothing but a singularity.

 

[leov]

Well, you didn't disappoint.

Why do you suppose it is that the only people who can see contradictions and other errors in the Bible are the unbelievers. What is blinding the faith-based thinker from seeing what is so obvious to others.? Is the one group seeing something that is not there, or the other seeing something that isn't?



Agreed. The fact that those claiming to see something others cannot are unable to agree on what it is that they see belies their delusion.



As @Subduction Zone indicated, differing beliefs are what betray your claim to this being science or knowledge of any kind.

Imagine a boy with daltonism, or red-green color blindness. People tell him that his socks don’t match even though they look the same to him, and he accepts the fact that he can’t sense some colors that others can.

But as time passes, the boy learns that Santa Claus was a hoax, as was the snipe hunting trip, and 52-card pick-up. So, he begins to wonder if the red-green thing is also some kind of hoax – an elaborate prank. How can he decide whether people are claiming to see something not really there, or if he can’t sense something that is?

Easy. He gets what he has been told are 25 red socks and 25 green socks, which he numbers so that he can tell which is which, and then shows them separately to several people who have not spoken together, people who claim to see red and green as different colors.

He asks them what color is sock number 1, 2, 3, etc., and records their answers. It’s the uniformity of their responses that tells him that they really see these colors. Had this been a hoax, he would expect the answers to be varied.

So, is there really a spiritual science? Let's poll a few of these spiritual scientists, see what they have learned, and compare their answers.

You need to understand Gnostic ways. God seldom communicate in literal ways, every person may have different take. There are those who take written Scripture as unchangeable God's word forever. It defeats the purpose, atheism is a knee jerk reaction to those people.

 

[Road Warrior]

I m short on time at the moment so I will keep my post short.

Link me those testable predictions that support multi-universe(s). I'm curious of what predictions have been tested and how.

The big bang is the leading theory. Before that nothing but a singularity.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence of anything outside our Natural Universe. However, advances in Quantum physics may eventually yeild that evidence just like technological advance allowed men to fly and to split the atom.

 

[leov]

How do you know where it comes from? Can you be mistaken about that? How can you find out if you are mistaken about that?

See, here's the problem. You keep repeating your assertion that you "just know". Several times hinted that you even know with certainty, as in: you can't be wrong.

How do you know that you can't be wrong?
How could you find out if you are wrong?

You agree other people can be wrong about exactly the same kind of claims, but concerning their particular gods. So why couldn't you?



Many people believe in many different gods (and are also quite certain those gods are communicating with them), and yours isn't special just because you happen to believe in that one.

I know, this is mystery I accept.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I m short on time at the moment so I will keep my post short.

Link me those testable predictions that support multi-universe(s). I'm curious of what predictions have been tested and how.

The big bang is the leading theory. Before that nothing but a singularity.

Inflation theory, certain incarnations of string theory and certain interpretations of quantum theory.

Inflation theory probably being the most important one, as string theory so far is more intellectual masturbation then anything else.

This article here seems a clear enough explanation in somewhat layman terms

What Is (And Isn’t) Scientific About The Multiverse - Medium

Although I must admit I didn't search very long. You might be able to find better explanations by digging a bit deeper.

When searching for "inflation theory multiverse", you should have no problem finding all kinds of resources.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You need to understand Gnostic ways. God seldom communicate in literal ways, every person may have different take. There are those who take written Scripture as unchangeable God's word forever.

So it's completely subjective and based on personal opinion and tastes. That's not going to get us anywhere.

It defeats the purpose, atheism is a knee jerk reaction to those people.

No, it isn't.

 

[leov]

So it's completely subjective and based on personal opinion and tastes. That's not going to get us anywhere.


No, it isn't.

Which personal opinion would you chose? Trump or Gandhi?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which personal opinion would you chose? Trump or Gandhi?

I would choose my own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need to understand Gnostic ways. God seldom communicate in literal ways, every person may have different take. There are those who take written Scripture as unchangeable God's word forever. It defeats the purpose, atheism is a knee jerk reaction to those people.

You are simply claiming "because I say so". By that standard you are wrong since "I say so". But seriously all you have is belief, not knowledge. Once again knowledge is demonstrable. If one only believes then one simply claims that something is true without giving any support.

 

[leov]

You are simply claiming "because I say so". By that standard you are wrong since "I say so". But seriously all you have is belief, not knowledge. Once again knowledge is demonstrable. If one only believes then one simply claims that something is true without giving any support.

How would you know what I got,? Show me your poof, you just have your belief about it.