Comments on: On the Origin of Matter, Energy And Internet Debates http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/ Conservative group weblog that publishes daily commentary on political events and topics affecting Canada, the United States and the world. Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:24:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: ThePolitic.com » Militant Atheism: There Is No Grounds!…Is There? http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180115 ThePolitic.com » Militant Atheism: There Is No Grounds!…Is There? Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:58:56 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180115 [...] other day I posted a piece on how no one can say for certain that there is no God without stepping into the arena of faith. [...] […] other day I posted a piece on how no one can say for certain that there is no God without stepping into the arena of faith. […]

]]> By: igloogirl http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180104 igloogirl Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:17:33 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180104 Dalton, I call that agnoticsim, not atheism. Atheism is just so.....so.....very....arrogant. Atheism has a look down your nose snobby, superior attitude attached to it. Dalton, I call that agnoticsim, not atheism. Atheism is just so…..so…..very….arrogant. Atheism has a look down your nose snobby, superior attitude attached to it.

]]> By: Matthew http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180093 Matthew Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:09:41 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180093 Joe, I certainly don't disagree with you, which probably makes me sound a bit strange for writing this post in the first place. All I can say is that the Spirit sometimes inspires me through my writings and today was one of those days. Joe, I certainly don’t disagree with you, which probably makes me sound a bit strange for writing this post in the first place. All I can say is that the Spirit sometimes inspires me through my writings and today was one of those days.

]]> By: Matthew http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180092 Matthew Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:07:41 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180092 Unfortunately Ken I did some brief research and it seems even the wiki cannot confirm for us a consistent definition of atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions). Your statement that atheism is a neutral position is curious though (Wiki also talks about this in the definitions section posted above). As you probably know from my arguments of the past, I see such goal posts as being relative and see no reason to believe that the existence of the Divine cannot be the neutral position as well (given, among other things, the issue of the origin of our universe/existence). That, however, leads into more arguments for other days (like whether our governments should be officially atheistic as the ACLU among others argue). Unfortunately Ken I did some brief research and it seems even the wiki cannot confirm for us a consistent definition of atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions).

Your statement that atheism is a neutral position is curious though (Wiki also talks about this in the definitions section posted above). As you probably know from my arguments of the past, I see such goal posts as being relative and see no reason to believe that the existence of the Divine cannot be the neutral position as well (given, among other things, the issue of the origin of our universe/existence). That, however, leads into more arguments for other days (like whether our governments should be officially atheistic as the ACLU among others argue).

]]> By: Ken http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180091 Ken Sat, 15 Mar 2008 05:52:49 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180091 Matthew, your definitions of atheism/agnosticism are not correct. You are right that atheists don't believe in god. I am atheist, I do not believe there is a god. I am not accepting this on faith anymore then when I say there is no invisible pink unicorn in my basement. Everything in the world had led me to believe there is no divine intervention. Maybe I'm wrong and I will allow this possibility. I am an atheist because it is the default position until I am given a reason to take another position, not just because I have some type of "willfull ignorance", as Joe said above. If "He" feels the need to reveal "Himself" to me, maybe I'll change my mind. However, atheism and agnosticism are answers to different questions. There is not a continuum with atheism on one side, belief in the supernatural on the other, and agnosticism in the middle. Agnostics think it is unknowable whether there is a god or not, yet they can still have an opinion on the subject. You can have an agnostic theist, just as you can have an agnostic atheist. Matthew, your definitions of atheism/agnosticism are not correct. You are right that atheists don’t believe in god. I am atheist, I do not believe there is a god. I am not accepting this on faith anymore then when I say there is no invisible pink unicorn in my basement. Everything in the world had led me to believe there is no divine intervention. Maybe I’m wrong and I will allow this possibility. I am an atheist because it is the default position until I am given a reason to take another position, not just because I have some type of “willfull ignorance”, as Joe said above. If “He” feels the need to reveal “Himself” to me, maybe I’ll change my mind.

However, atheism and agnosticism are answers to different questions. There is not a continuum with atheism on one side, belief in the supernatural on the other, and agnosticism in the middle. Agnostics think it is unknowable whether there is a god or not, yet they can still have an opinion on the subject. You can have an agnostic theist, just as you can have an agnostic atheist.

]]> By: Joe http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180090 Joe Sat, 15 Mar 2008 04:59:58 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180090 I don't think that atheism is so much a matter of faith as it is a state of willfull ignorance. All the logic and theological arguments did not convince me of the existance of God. The atheist in me would not be convinced until one day I met Him. Even now the theological arguments even though I agree with them are not capable of instilling faith in me. I don't believe in God because someone can use logic. I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me. I don’t think that atheism is so much a matter of faith as it is a state of willfull ignorance. All the logic and theological arguments did not convince me of the existance of God. The atheist in me would not be convinced until one day I met Him. Even now the theological arguments even though I agree with them are not capable of instilling faith in me. I don’t believe in God because someone can use logic. I believe in God because He revealed Himself to me.

]]> By: Matthew http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180086 Matthew Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:54:57 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180086 Sorry guys, maybe I should've clarified that I've been working off the definition of Atheism as a statement of there being no God. I would call the "I don't know" that you speak of as agnosticism. Hope this patches things up. Sorry guys, maybe I should’ve clarified that I’ve been working off the definition of Atheism as a statement of there being no God. I would call the “I don’t know” that you speak of as agnosticism. Hope this patches things up.

]]> By: Ken http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180066 Ken Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:57:09 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180066 Matthew, saying that I don't know how something works isn't relying on faith in the least. A leap of faith is to say you know something to be true without evidence. You make a good point on how can something come from nothing. I do not know how. However, just because you choose to have faith and substitute something in, doesn't mean that someone that doesn't substitute something in has to have faith. You are essentially saying that if there is any question that the answer is unknowable (at least for now), then everyone must have some type of faith. This isn't true. Matthew, saying that I don’t know how something works isn’t relying on faith in the least. A leap of faith is to say you know something to be true without evidence.

You make a good point on how can something come from nothing. I do not know how. However, just because you choose to have faith and substitute something in, doesn’t mean that someone that doesn’t substitute something in has to have faith. You are essentially saying that if there is any question that the answer is unknowable (at least for now), then everyone must have some type of faith. This isn’t true.

]]> By: jmorrison http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180065 jmorrison Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:47:09 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180065 was it not einstein who said, nothing happens until something moves? was it not einstein who said, nothing happens until something moves?

]]> By: dalton http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180064 dalton Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:28:46 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180064 Atheism is a statement that says: we don't know. Maybe we'll figure it out. In the meantime we'll acknowledge that we don't. Raith is a statement that says: we don't know. So we'll call that absence of knowledge "God". Atheism is a statement that says: we don’t know. Maybe we’ll figure it out. In the meantime we’ll acknowledge that we don’t.

Raith is a statement that says: we don’t know. So we’ll call that absence of knowledge “God”.

]]> By: Matthew http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180063 Matthew Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:23:54 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180063 The burden of proof is not on me to "prove God" though, if we are discussing Atheism not being faith-based. If it isn't faith-based, there must be a proof for God not existing. I acknowledge what you state about time though, although it doesn't change the premise that I stated which is that existence couldn't have come from nothing (0 + 0 != something). You acknowledge that we don't know how this works, ergo Atheism is a leap of faith. The burden of proof is not on me to “prove God” though, if we are discussing Atheism not being faith-based. If it isn’t faith-based, there must be a proof for God not existing. I acknowledge what you state about time though, although it doesn’t change the premise that I stated which is that existence couldn’t have come from nothing (0 + 0 != something). You acknowledge that we don’t know how this works, ergo Atheism is a leap of faith.

]]> By: Lore_Weaver http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180058 Lore_Weaver Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:05:22 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180058 What Ken wrote is exactly right. I'm willing to change anything I believe if given enough evidence. Show me evidence of God, and I'll believe in that too. What Ken wrote is exactly right. I’m willing to change anything I believe if given enough evidence. Show me evidence of God, and I’ll believe in that too.

]]> By: Ken http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180057 Ken Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:57:13 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180057 There is no faith required in atheism. Just because there are questions that aren't answered (ie. how existence started), doesn't mean there is faith. Maybe an individual atheist happens to believe something on faith, but that doesn't mean it applies to the whole group. An atheist can come up with theories to the unanswered questions, but as long as they are willing to change as contrary evidence is presented, I don't see how this requires faith. There is no faith required in atheism. Just because there are questions that aren’t answered (ie. how existence started), doesn’t mean there is faith. Maybe an individual atheist happens to believe something on faith, but that doesn’t mean it applies to the whole group. An atheist can come up with theories to the unanswered questions, but as long as they are willing to change as contrary evidence is presented, I don’t see how this requires faith.

]]> By: Lore_Weaver http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180056 Lore_Weaver Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:57:00 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/14/on-the-origin-of-matter-energy-and-internet-debates/#comment-180056 There's a couple concepts that your missing. There is no concept of time before the beginning of the universe, so there is no concept of before there was something, because time had a definite beginning, and for time to start, there needed to be matter with a density less than that of a black hole. So there is no "before" motion, or "before" existence of basic particles and atoms, because there was no "before" because there was no "time". What started "time" you say? Well, the big bang did. Well how did that start you say? Or how could it start without time to affect it? We don't know yet, but that's no reason to invoke God. The real issue is the joining of Quantum Mechanics with the rest of physics. Your argument is not proof of existence of God. Matter and Energy have existed as long as there has been time, and that has been proven to be maintained. There’s a couple concepts that your missing.

There is no concept of time before the beginning of the universe, so there is no concept of before there was something, because time had a definite beginning, and for time to start, there needed to be matter with a density less than that of a black hole.

So there is no “before” motion, or “before” existence of basic particles and atoms, because there was no “before” because there was no “time”.

What started “time” you say? Well, the big bang did.

Well how did that start you say? Or how could it start without time to affect it? We don’t know yet, but that’s no reason to invoke God. The real issue is the joining of Quantum Mechanics with the rest of physics.

Your argument is not proof of existence of God.

Matter and Energy have existed as long as there has been time, and that has been proven to be maintained.

]]>