Matter

[dUSt]

Does any of this really matter?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1309564393' post='2261809']
So with my limited knowledge of quantum physics, it seems then that the first cause of anything is unknown, and that atheists have to accept not knowing the first cause to accept that there is no need for God. So you either accept that God is the cause of reality, who we can reasonably assume exists in a reality wholly other than the physical reality that we know and study. Or we have to accept that we don't know. It does not seem reasonable that matter, or reality can exist from nothing and came from nothing. It seems to me that is why some atheists assert that life on earth was planted by aliens (an unknown superior being) in some distant past (and alluded to in the latest Indiana movie).
[/quote]
Perhaps it is helpful to consider that many of the popularizers of these ideas (Krauss, Hawking, Stenger, etc) betray a commitment to a radical positivist epistemology. Imo, it would be naive to think that there isn't an agenda at play: namely, the metaphysical questions that you're wondering about are invalid and the laws of physics alone can provide an ultimate explanation of the universe (or at least the closest think to an ultimate explanation within the range of authentic knowledge). That's the point of view in a nutshell -- at least as I see it. And from this pov it is enough to have a working theory or theories to make the point.

Sadly I must go abruptly and cannot finish what I wanted to say... More later perhaps.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm back from a party and was thinking I should finish my post but I don't quite remember where I was going with it.

[quote name='Brother Adam']Or we have to accept that we don't know. It does not seem reasonable that matter, or reality can exist from nothing and came from nothing. [/quote]
Perhaps something that stevil said above will be illustrative: "[i]The confusion with most people is that nothing is entirely nothing, but science has shown that nothing is not nothing at all[/i]." First, this strikes me as an example of the "Science says..." thing I was griping about above. Second, contemporary theoretical physics does not identify the quantum vacuum with ontological nothingness. The quantum vacuum has properties and can be measured. In ontology "nothing" is a technical term; in the context of current pop-physics "nothing" is, I suppose, an ambiguous colloquialism for the vacuum state as described by quantum field theory. The ontological category of nothing and the so-called nothing of QFT belong to distinct domains of discourse and to gloss over this fact is to be guilty of equivocation.
I think it is perfectly valid for scientists to probe the origins of the universe as much as possible. I don't find anything problematic in principle about the suggestion that our universe may have arisen as a quantum fluctuation, etcetera, however, I fear this "universe from nothing" line has become an internet talking point perhaps representative of what Mikael Stenmark calls scientific expansionism.

* [i]I have no expertise in any field related to this discussion and am only sharing my tentative impressions.[/i]

[Papist]

What is matter? And does it matter?....please ignore the pun.

[thessalonian]

"atheists are actually proud of NOT knowing."

The one thing they claim not to know.....Mostly they are proud of knowing.

[stevil]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1309621554' post='2262125']
"atheists are actually proud of NOT knowing."

The one thing they claim not to know.....Mostly they are proud of knowing.
[/quote]
Speak for yourself please

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1309621554' post='2262125']
"atheists are actually proud of NOT knowing."

The one thing they claim not to know.....Mostly they are proud of knowing.[/quote]

Most atheists (at least of the sample size I've encountered in my life) actually classify themselves as 'weak atheists' or agnostic atheists and don't claim to know (agnosticism refers to knowledge and literally translates to 'without knowledge' whereas atheism is 'without belief in gods'). I guess the epistemological difference it that theists might see belief as justified knowledge whereas atheists see their lack of belief as just lack of [i]belief[/i] and not justified [i]knowledge[/i]:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Knowledge_venn_diagram.png[/img]

If I were to guess, I would say that we look at the same proposition (god exists) very differently, and atheists who haven't taken the time to talk to theists really do see their conception of god as analogous to unicorns and the giant tea pot revolving around Saturn, because that's how we classify a belief in god, as pure mythology.

As for me, I don't think wilful ignorance is something to be proud of (of things that can be known), but I think god is essentially unknowable, so pride doesn't really apply. I reject theistic and deistic claims not because of pride but pure skepticism.

Why did Stevil get a phishy tag? Can I expect to get one anytime soon?

Edited July 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[stevil]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309639910' post='2262237']
Why did Stevil get a phishy tag? Can I expect to get one anytime soon?
[/quote]
I asked about the tag after it was gifted to me, but got no answer.
I'm not really sure what it means, whether they see me as a troll, or whether they want to distinguish me away from the community?
I'm pretty open and honest about my position as an Atheist so I'm sure no-one confuses what i say as being the official stance of the Catholic church.

The tag does make me feel undervalued. But maybe I am reading too much into it.
There are many Catholics on this forum also with the same tag.

Edited July 2, 2011 by stevil

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309642668' post='2262256']
I asked about the tag after it was gifted to me, but got no answer.
I'm not really sure what it means, whether they see me as a troll, or whether they want to distinguish me away from the community?
I'm pretty open and honest about my position as an Atheist so I'm sure no-one confuses what i say as being the official stance of the Catholic church.

The tag does make me feel undervalued. But maybe I am reading too much into it.
There are many Catholics on this forum also with the same tag.
[/quote]

It's not the "I don't represent the Church" part but the "warning" that I think is a bit too much. Makes it look like some people are radioactive biohazards. For atheists (who obviously don't represent the Church) who already display the fact that they don't believe under their avatar it's a bit...I don't know. It's not like our starting point is operating within Catholic doctrine in the first place, like the Catholics with the tags who hold differing opinions (and I can see why they would want to differentiate those from the official position of the group). There are also non Catholic Christians here, and some don't have the tag...so something's up.

Could a mod please clarify?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309642668' post='2262256']
I asked about the tag after it was gifted to me, but got no answer.
I'm not really sure what it means, whether they see me as a troll, or whether they want to distinguish me away from the community?
I'm pretty open and honest about my position as an Atheist so I'm sure no-one confuses what i say as being the official stance of the Catholic church.

The tag does make me feel undervalued. But maybe I am reading too much into it.
There are many Catholics on this forum also with the same tag.
[/quote]

I would not feel undervalued because of the tag. It is not because anything things you are a troll either. I appreciate your insight.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309642668' post='2262256']
I'm not really sure what it means, whether they see me as a troll, or whether they want to distinguish me away from the community?
[/quote]
The community does not give out the phishy tag, just dUSt afaik. I don't agree with the tag system (not that it matters -- not a democratic site), to me it's enough that you have agnostic atheist named as your religion. The logic of the tag, as I understand it, suggests that there are imaginary visitors to this site who will assume that your views are Church teachings and thereby be mislead and so the gaudy tag is necessary. In practice it often does strike me as a tool for marginalization. I am surprised that you've not had a reply. In my experience the mods are decent about responding and explaining things. Maybe it was a solo act of dUSt (the site admin) and they just don't know what to say.

[stevil]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1309681086' post='2262548']
The logic of the tag, as I understand it, suggests that there are imaginary visitors to this site who will assume that your views are Church teachings and thereby be mislead and so the gaudy tag is necessary. In practice it often does strike me as a tool for marginalization. I am surprised that you've not had a reply. In my experience the mods are decent about responding and explaining things. Maybe it was a solo act of dUSt (the site admin) and they just don't know what to say.
[/quote]

Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated.