Cite, especially in regard to thermodynamic requirements?
The lifespan of virtual particles is considerably more confined in these two early google hits:
1 Virtual Particles and Conservation of Energy
2 Virtual Particles and Conservation of Energy
Maybe so, although I would prefer an explantion which does not involve airbrushing out the energy of the Universe,
given its enormous content and effect.
I’m wondering if pchaos believes there are a lot of those “I’m an atheist because I’m mad at god” characters wandering around. Those exist primarily in fiction.
If he thought that, I’d wonder why those angry at God would have a religious wedding. Maybe he was unaware of the alternatives? I just discovered that in Germany you could have a church wedding or a secular justice of the peace type one where the number of guests is strictly limited - to like two. I think lots of Germans who are atheists have church weddings because of this. This is actually relevant to me (or my daughter, actually) - I wonder if German Dopers could give more info on this. If not, I’ll ask it in GQ.
Beats me. If you can believe that atheists accept the existence of God and are just mad at him, I guess you can accept that atheists reject God but think he’s necessary for weddings. I think pchaos is going to have to clear this one up himself. Either way, pchaos, I hasted to add that you don’t need to be an atheist to choose to be married at city hall or by a justice of the peace.
I still want to know why you think this conclusion follows from this premise?
Even if this were true, and orderly thought was only possible as a consequence of an orderly origin, wouldn’t it mean that no original thought is possible? I mean, if our thoughts are so beholden to whatever it was that started the universe, it doesn’t even matter if they’re random or orderly, because they’re not our own.
The OP’s opinion is based on a conservation theory, much like St. Anthelm’s ontological proof (and numerous others). If you posit that “x is conserved” and “x exists”, then you have to conclude that “there had to be x to begin with”.
The problem with these ontological proofs fall into two categories. The first is treating existence as a property (Anthelm’s mistake). The second is the weakness of the “x is conserved” assumption. That’s usually based on a world view, not a logical argument. JP Mooreland is a big fan, as a platonist. Me, not so much.
I have two replies. One is Huck Finn’s definition of faith, which is “believing what you know ain’t so!”
The other: Faith is what I choose to act as though it were true, regardless of whether it is or not, because it makes my life work. But I do not claim it is true.
We don’t even know whether we’ve phrased the question in a manner that makes sense!
No we don’t. We do what we choose to do, which may or may not be in what we think is our own best interest. How do we choose? That’s a difficult question. No doubt some people do what they think is in their best interest, but certainly not all.
My wife and I were married by a gay atheist rabbi. It seems to have “taken”, if the first 25 years are any guide. No blessings were administered; God wasn’t mentioned. My wife was raised Catholic and is a deist/theist of some kind; I was raised Protestant and am confident that whatever anyone believes is likely to be missing the point.
Beware false atheists! :-o
Beneath it all, there is a nagging question, “Why is there anything at all?” IMHO, the fact that there is is the Great Absurdity. Things would be so much simpler if there were nothing. Of course, then there’d be no things, and nobody to wonder why there weren’t. Wouldn’t that be nice and cozily consistent?
It’s no surprise to me that intelligent people wrestle with this.
During the Age of Reason, most rational/scientifically minded people believed that the universe had always existed, which helped avoid the beginning issue. Einstein fudged a “comsmological constant” to keep the universe stable (neither growing nor shrinking). When Hubble discovered that it was expanding, and cosmologists conceived the Big Bang, theists were delighted because they thought it put a need for God back into the universe.
Unfortunately, they were deceived. Big Bang theory does not posit that nothing preceeded the BB, it just says that we can’t say much about it. Even then, there are things we can say. For example, if the universe is infinite now, then it was at the BB.
It’s a philosophical question that has no ultimately determinable answer. I’ll just agree to disagree on it. 
There may be many branes where there is nothing at all. Fir the first five billion years of the universe (or more) there probably was no one thinking about why there was something. Ditto for the first few billion years of the history of the earth.
I’m sure there were lots of message board discussions about them not existing.
Sorry, haven’t read through everyone’s responses here, so this has most likely already been addressed, but thought I’d answer the OP since I was bored in my room tonight and saw the thread pop up.
Leaving aside that you are mixing cosmology and evolution, my question is…why? Let’s take it as a given for a moment that the universe developed randomly as a result of the Big Bang. Matter clumped together, stars formed and died, new elements were forged, new stars reformed as matter again clumped together, fast forward billions of years and a spinning disk of gas and dust eventually formed our own solar system, composed of the corpses of all those old dead stars, and there we go…our solar system was born. It’s a Goldilocks system, with just the right placement of matter, the right sized star, the right distribution of planets moving into the right locations that allowed for the placement of a rocky planet, after much shuffling and collisions, into the right place and with the right amount of early asteroids and comets to bring the right amount of water and organic molecules and is in the butter zone for life with all of these factors in play. Where did the life come from? No one really knows for sure and for this discussion it doesn’t really matter, let’s just assume it was random…it came from the primordial soup (those complex organic molecules brought by those asteroids and comets) struck by lightning over literally millions or hundreds of millions of years after the planet cooled, and next thing you know, Bob’s your Uncle…life is here. It evolved (NOW we are talking about evolution btw) from simple forms through complex ones, and again the right number of disasters coupled with stability in certain periods of time came together to eventually lead to first very complex organisms and, eventually, to intelligent life. All random, we will say, for the sake of argument. Ok, so, here we are, complex and intelligent life, from random events. So, why would our thoughts ‘have little or no validity’, exactly? We are intelligent after all. We have a complex set of societies and cultures, complex language and complex thought. If we assume it all arose randomly, how does that in any way invalidate our thought??
Only if your baseline assumption is that validity only arises through God or the gods, which is basically just an assertion on your part. Again, follow the above chain of randomness to get to us. Whether you believe it’s true or not, use it as a mental exercise and, for the sake of argument assume it’s true…how does the fact that we came from random events and a series of low probability events invalidate our species, it’s culture, it’s thinking or anything about us. We are intelligent after all, so no matter how we arose we still have the same validity, whether a magic God pulled us along with the fish out of his or her ass, or whether we arose through random chance…unless your baseline assumption is that ONLY through a God or gods do we have validity. Tell me, how does that make sense to you?
Oh, and to answer the question asked in the title, I’d say it was basically an accident…no intelligent God or gods required. I think the thing that bakes the noodle of theists who grapple with this is that they can’t conceive of how something as complex could arise randomly, and it seems so improbable that there could be all of these random chances that come together over and over again and lead to us and to the Earth. It’s like winning the lottery several times over.
Here’s the thing though…the universe up there? It’s huge beyond most people’s ability to grasp. Our galaxy alone has something between 100 billion and a trillion STARS in it…and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies we can see, and most likely a lot more we haven’t seen yet. It all came together here, but when you look at the numbers it is nearly a certainty that it would have to happen…probably many, many times over the life of the universe it has or will happen or is happening even as we speak, though we will probably never know. We have solid evidence that everything that could make a planet like the earth possible is out there, right in our own solar system. The organic molecules are embedded in asteroids and comets and we’ve seen it directly. The water that made our oceans is out there…we’ve seen it. We know that in space matter clumps together…again, we’ve seen it, experiments have been done in space and the clumping is quick. Orbital mechanics that lead to our current configuration of the solar system is all stuff that can be worked out with a little math and some computers. The moon? That too can be worked out with a bit of math, a quick dash to the moon to snag some rocks and analyze them and determine how old they are and what they are made of (basically the Earth’s mantle).
No God or gods required…it’s all up there, it’s all stuff we’ve seen and can deduce. You are, of course, free to believe what you want wrt God, but doesn’t it strike you as strange at all that everything you need for the Earth is out there?
The problem is that everything we know about nothing is based in intuition, extrapolation and guesswork. We do not have any to study, to discover its properties and behaviors, and even if we did, that Heisenberg thing would get in the way. To study nothing we would end up making it not nothing, which could be helpful, but most likely not. There is always something, so we cannot really be certain that something cannot come from nothing. I mean, look at Newton’s laws of motion, we knew they scaled linear, until we found out they do not. Everything you know is wrong, you must know that.
Making something from ‘nothing’ is actually theoretically feasible.
So, it’s at least theoretically possible. Of course, we don’t know what the early conditions of the universe were before the big bang, but it probably wasn’t ‘nothing’ in any case. If one has to be a theist, I’d focus on that, as we will probably never really know…so, God of the Gaps is the best bet, and pin God as the finger that set off the big bang and put everything into motion initially. Myself, no God or gods are needed, but it’s at least plausible I guess.
Again, I apologize for my ignorance about atheists, but I thought one of the major reasons people became atheists was that they weren’t happy with what they considered a sadistic God. To me, atheism would be a reasonable response if you were mad at God.
Atheism means we don’t believe God exists. We’re not mad at him- any more than you’re mad at leprechauns or unicorns. The same way you think about Thor or Athena or Vishnu, we atheists think about God. We think it’s fiction.
No-atheism is not believing that there is a god at all. It isn’t believing that a god is evil. When atheists refer to “your god”, “the Christian god” etc., it is a shortcut for “that mythical deity that is being worshiped”.
A person who believes in a God or gods, but considers them evil and unworthy of worship, would be a misotheist.
As has been noted, an atheist doesn’t believe in gods at all.
I have to ask: What religious sect do you belong to that teaches you such inaccuracies?