Well, I got tired of YouTube (deleting my account, four attempts at a director’s account, crummy site hardly ever works, etc.). So, I’m moving. I’ll keep my YouTube account open and check out anything new there. But, I’m focusing my energies where they’ll get better results (got a director’s account first day and doubled the file size I can upload, the software seems to work better, the community is already gelling really well. It looks good)
But hey… if there is no God, then who made us? Who made the primordial glue? Who created innate senses? Who created life? Who created calcium and protein? What is your take on that?
There wasn’t a “who”, it was “what”…which was the Big Bang, which created the universe, planets, stars, comets, etc.
Molecules of amino acids formed from atoms which were formed from neutrons, proton, quarks, etc. pulled together by gravitational forces.
Those amino acids were stimulated by electrical charges present when the Earth was very, very, young. This formed the first proteins which became single-celled organisms. Single cell organisms later created multi-cellular organisms.
Stimulated further by solar radiation, the evolutionary process created mutations in organisms which were passed on generationally over 4.57 Billion years. Organisms became more complex over time as they adapted to their environment.
Who created the propensity for the big bang? Just curious about your answer.
In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.
Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony).
The term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble’s law) began — calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (±2%) — and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory.
From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict, at least qualitatively, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The CMB was discovered in 1964 and further corroborated the Big Bang theory, giving it an additional advantage over its chief rival, the steady state theory….
Buddhism has a concept of universes that have no initial creation event, but instead go through infinitely repeated cycles of expansion, stability, destruction, and quiescence. The Big Bang may be reconciled with this view, since there are ways to conceive an eternal creation and destruction of universes within the paradigm. A number of popular Zen philosophers were intrigued, in particular, by the concept of the oscillatory universe.
The oscillatory universe is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.
It was once popular amongst cosmologists who thought some force would prevent the formation of a gravitational singularity and connect the big bang to an earlier big crunch: the mathematical singularities seen in calculations were the result of mathematical over-idealizations and would be resolved by a more careful treatment. However, in the 1960s, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and George Ellis showed that singularities were a universal feature of cosmologies with a big bang and that no feature of general relativity could prevent them. Theoretically, the oscillating universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model.
The theory has been revived in brane cosmology as the cyclic model, which evades most of the arguments leveled against the oscillatory universe in the sixties. Despite some success, the theory is still controversial, largely because there is no satisfactory string theoretic description of the bounce in this model.
I’ll try to get through your questions here. But, I’m not a philosophy major.
What I would like to ask you after this reply, is this: Is atheism based on the belief that faith, or anything yet concretely proven, is merely hypothesis and should not be respected, valued, or adhered to?
I can’t speak for all atheists. But, even in science, there is the matter of “probabilities”. Hypothesis’ typically begin on a hunch, which theory “smells good”. With more data gathered, a hypothesis can either show a low probability or high probability of being correct when tested. Monkeys might evolve the ability to fly someday. But, it looks improbable. Nothing supports that hypothesis. So, its not even entertained.
In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a mathematical limit on the accuracy with which it is possible to measure everything there is to know about a physical system. In its simplest form, it applies to the position and momentum of a single particle, and implies that if we continue increasing the accuracy with which one of these is measured, there will come a point at which the other must be measured with less accuracy.
Wouldn’t this go against the claim that atheist have which is that they have a right NOT to believe?
Everyone has right to believe whatever they like, no matter how ridiculous. But, when false claims and imaginary deities do demonstrable harm to society, or promote ignorance of what is true, those claims must be challenged.
Atheism isn’t a church with its own dogma. The point of atheism, as far as I know, is to spend less time and resources chasing false hopes, exercise the higher brain faculties and use reason to find what is demonstrably true. This would enable humanity to make improvements in the future that we lacked in the past.
It something has a connection to your heart rather than to a ruler and a scientific principal, does it make that belief any less important or valuable than one that can be re-proven in a jar?
In what context? if my heart tells me to do something that is demonstrably horrific (like barbecuing the neighbor’s kids for laughs) its a safe bet the evidence trumps my heart.
On the other hand, listening to your heart can trump perfectly rational situations and you may sacrifice yourself, acting against your own self-interest for a higher purpose and the greater good.
Is a girl’s belief in a unicorn (or God) any less valuable than, say, the theory or relativity or the speed of light?
The Theory of Relativity or Unicorns or God has no bearing on morality, if that’s what you’re getting at. Conscience is a product of our evolution as a species, both biologically and socially. Even primates and other animals are capable of empathizing with others.
Which one helps her survive best?
What is the qualification?
To survive humans need food, water, and oxygen.
If you mean what helps her remain sane and healthy, that’s another subject.
And you’re right, religion is sometimes illogical, but sometimes it is not. If this is not really an argument about which belief is right, and which one is wrong, is it simply about one’s right to choose what to believe?
If so, then why the argument?
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when asked how the world might have changed, biologist Richard Dawkins responded:
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labeled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let’s now stop being so damned respectful!
What is the argument?
What is the harm done by belief in the supernatural? and Is it worth continuing to promote this belief without something to substantiate it on?
Can you define it using one sentence?
Is there or is there not a God and, if so, which one?
There are so many layers of abstract. Nothing in life is as concrete to me as the abstract notion of love. It’s hard to argue a paradox. Are we all talking over one another or do we meet somewhere in here, perhaps on a more universal level? As usual.. philosophy asks more questions than it answers.
Yes it does.
I think I stated in one of my videos that I tried to define my philosophy toward religion by saying I am an Existential Zen Buddhist Atheist. I kinda got into Buddhism (as philosopher Alan Watts called it, “The Religion of No Religion”), in a strange way, by reading up on physics.