christian / atheist debates in school

[BigFriendlyApologist]

Prior to Planck Time, the laws of physics as we know them break down. We cannot therefore say with certainty what happened before then.

True. However, as I've mentioned multiple times though, although we do not know for sure, the mathematical 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past. If we look at the most probable explanation, it would seem that our universe has a beginning. Now it is possible, assuming various other factors that our universe is infinite. However, by use of Occam's razor, we tend to go to the simplest explanation with the least assumptions.

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

That isn't the definition of secular humanism. You are describing universal hedonism and my morality is far from being that simplistic. Certain aspects for self preservation evolved and are a part of what makes up the concept I have of morality. I have no doubt of that. However, it goes beyond that because it is also based on philosophical developments and the increase in our understanding of the universe over the years. I already stated quite a bit of the basic concepts that underline my morality in my initial post. If you are trying to put a label on me than I do not know which one best fits me. It would definitely be a form of secular humanism since my morality is not derived from supernatural forces, but it definitely would not be the simplistic hedonism that you ascribe to that label.

I apologize if I misrepresented your moral position. I am simply curious.

If you believe in the greatest good for the greatest many, I have a few questions that I would find it difficult to answer in your position. Here is one example.

Ex: If we want the greatest good for the greatest many, what would be wrong with killing certain people to get rid of certain genes that cause disease or other problems?

Again, I have no intention of misrepresenting your morality so please correct me if I get anything wrong. I am open to corrections

 

[TheKringledOne]

I apologize if I misrepresented your moral position. I am simply curious.

It is fine. I will often do similar things without thinking.

If you believe in the greatest good for the greatest many, I have a few questions that I would find it difficult to answer in your position. Here is one example.

Ex: If we want the greatest good for the greatest many, what would be wrong with killing certain people to get rid of certain genes that cause disease or other problems?

A big part of morality is considering our impact on others. I know that I have preferences towards wanting to live and against feeling pain. These preferences aren't arbitrary and have biological basis. Since I also do not have any valid reasons for believing that my preferences are uniquely important then this obliges me not to kill or injures others to avoid hypocrisy and thus moral inconsistency. Just because not wanting to be killed or hurt is a preference I have does not lessen its relevance to morality.

This applies to people with disease as well. There is no reason to kill these people with the technology we have. Quarantining these people would be justified, but killing them would not be as nobody can kill another person and remain consistent unless they are okay with themselves being killed.

 

[galacticsuburb]

Atheist debate is rarely considered an "attack" by those partaking in it. The moment you realize that these people telling you these things isn't en evil lure, but rather a good-intentioned philosophical search for truth, it becomes easier to fully respect and even admire your fellow truth-seeking human.

 

[Alex314]

If I may step in here for a moment

I apologize if I misrepresented your moral position. I am simply curious.

If you believe in the greatest good for the greatest many, I have a few questions that I would find it difficult to answer in your position. Here is one example.

Ex: If we want the greatest good for the greatest many, what would be wrong with killing certain people to get rid of certain genes that cause disease or other problems?

Again, I have no intention of misrepresenting your morality so please correct me if I get anything wrong. I am open to corrections

First, one needs to understand genetics to see why the eugenics movement were flawed. If one were to try to exterminate the albino gene in a population, one quickly runs into a problem that a very small percentage of the albino gene in a population is expressed in albinos, the majority of the albino gene is recessive and hidden in the gene pool of the perfectly healthy people. Thus, one would have to kill about 5 times more healthy people than albinos to hope to be able to do anything to eliminate albinism.
Then comes other mutations such as those causing dwarfism, who spontaneously occur in one case in say a million. Even if one were to wipe out entirely dwarfism on the planet, in one case in a million, this genetic disease would come back anyways.
As for dominant genetic diseases, where only one allele of a defective gene is needed to be sick, such diseases are usually small because their effects are easy to see and easy to avoid. Anyone who is sick with such a disease has a 1/2 chance of passing the disease to their children, and everyone will see it.

As for the more usual bacterial or viral diseases, killing people wouldn't help much at all, because dead bodies are prone to infection and would actually propagate not only the disease you are trying to eliminate via bodily fluids, but would also pose a very grave risk of propagating other diseases as well.

By far the best thing to do is to research for medicine to cure such diseases, and to isolate patients who are infected.

That being said, if there ever came to pass that a highly infectious and highly deadly disease were to pop up (we are already overdue for an epidemic, think SARS, H1N1, Spanish Flu, a new kind of plague, or Ebola fever), then the use of deadly force if necessary would be perfectly acceptable. If forcefully detaining and isolating the few who are sick will save millions of lives throughout the globe, it would be a moral obligation to kill people who do not cooperate and threaten global security and stability by trying to escape and who would inadvertently spread the disease.

I hope this may help to answer some of your questions pertaining to a humanist/non-religious approach to ethics and morality.

 

[Wesley]

True. However, as I've mentioned multiple times though, although we do not know for sure, the mathematical 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past. If we look at the most probable explanation, it would seem that our universe has a beginning. Now it is possible, assuming various other factors that our universe is infinite. However, by use of Occam's razor, we tend to go to the simplest explanation with the least assumptions.

Well, "probable" is fair enough. Assuming for the question that "probable" is shown out, the question is, how does one leap from a "beginning of this universe" to "god(s) created this universe"? Invoking Occam's Razor, the search for physical causes has received a boost recently: observations of the microwave background radiation of the universe suggest evidence of interactions with other universes, giving admittedly tentative support for the idea of a "foam" of universes.

Additionally, I've yet to see any explanation as to why something created must have a beginning, but why that which created it need not. In the absence of such an explanation, the First Cause argument seems to be an exercise in special pleading.

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

Well, "probable" is fair enough. Assuming for the question that "probable" is shown out, the question is, how does one leap from a "beginning of this universe" to "god(s) created this universe"?

Good. So if we assume that overwhelming probability favors a caused universe, then we need some sort of cause. Furthermore, in order to prevent infinite logical regress (i.e. what caused the cause of the universe, what caused the cause of the cause of the universe, etc.) there must be some Uncaused Cause that is both powerful enough to create the universe, intelligent enough to conceive of a universe (particularly ours which can actually sustain itself - I can go into more details on this if you so desire) and eternal (being outside what we define as spacetime). These characteristics are the start of what one would call God.

Invoking Occam's Razor, the search for physical causes has received a boost recently: observations of the microwave background radiation of the universe suggest evidence of interactions with other universes, giving admittedly tentative support for the idea of a "foam" of universes.

I know that the microwave background radiation has helped support the Big Bang. but I haven't seen this new evidence. I'm actually surprised it exists. It is my understanding that unless another universe somehow collided with ours we would have no evidence for any other universes and I would have thought I would have heard of such an event. Please share this evidence

Additionally, I've yet to see any explanation as to why something created must have a beginning, but why that which created it need not. In the absence of such an explanation, the First Cause argument seems to be an exercise in special pleading.

See the infinite regress argument. There must be some original Uncaused Cause with the characteristics I laid out. It is simple logic, no special pleading necessary

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

I hope this may help to answer some of your questions pertaining to a humanist/non-religious approach to ethics and morality.

Cool... thanks to both you and TheKringledOne for your responses. I will be back with more questions but I am rather busy at the moment so I don't know if I will get to it today

 

[Alex314]

True. However, as I've mentioned multiple times though, although we do not know for sure, the mathematical 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.

Actually, that's not necessarily the case. The models may reach a boundary in the past, but models are only our representations of reality to the best of our knowledge, and since we cannot see past a certain point in the past, necessarily our models cannot extend too far past that point.
Without belaboring the point, our models can only extend so far past that which we know, but without knowing more than we currently know, we have no way of knowing if the models are actually accurate and correct in their representation of the early universe which we cannot observe yet.

BTW, I'm not very well versed at all in cosmology, so I may be left hopelessly far behind with these arguments, I just thought I'd throw in my 0.02$

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

Actually, that's not necessarily the case. The models may reach a boundary in the past, but models are only our representations of reality to the best of our knowledge, and since we cannot see past a certain point in the past, necessarily our models cannot extend too far past that point.
Without belaboring the point, our models can only extend so far past that which we know, but without knowing more than we currently know, we have no way of knowing if the models are actually accurate and correct in their representation of the early universe which we cannot observe yet.

BTW, I'm not very well versed at all in cosmology, so I may be left hopelessly far behind with these arguments, I just thought I'd throw in my 0.02$

I think you and Wesley have basically the same argument in this case. However, even if we do not know for certain (which I freely admit), based on the mathematical odds proven by Guth, et al., it is far more probable that any inflationary universe (such as ours) would have a spacetime at zero. This model is not "extending too far past that point" at which we can definitively know what happened as it is only 1e-43 seconds after the spacetime began. Again, this cannot be certain but like most scientists, I would favor the more likely and rational explanation.

 

[Wesley]

Good. So if we assume that overwhelming probability favors a caused universe, then we need some sort of cause. Furthermore, in order to prevent infinite logical regress (i.e. what caused the cause of the universe, what caused the cause of the cause of the universe, etc.) there must be some Uncaused Cause that is both powerful enough to create the universe, intelligent enough to conceive of a universe (particularly ours which can actually sustain itself - I can go into more details on this if you so desire) and eternal (being outside what we define as spacetime). These characteristics are the start of what one would call God.

That isn't obvious to me. I don't see that an infinite regression is not possible. I also don't see why your god should not need a creator, but the Universe should. I'm familiar with the First Cause argument, but as I've already stated, I find it unconvincing, and a form of special pleading. Simply restating it doesn't change that, without new information.

I know that the microwave background radiation has helped support the Big Bang. but I haven't seen this new evidence. I'm actually surprised it exists. It is my understanding that unless another universe somehow collided with ours we would have no evidence for any other universes and I would have thought I would have heard of such an event. Please share this evidence

Gladly:

The theory that invokes these bubble universes - a theory formally called "eternal inflation" - holds that such universes are popping into and out of existence and colliding all the time, with the space between them rapidly expanding - meaning that they are forever out of reach of one another. But Hiranya Peiris, a cosmologist at University College London, and her colleagues have now worked out that when these universes are created adjacent to our own, they may leave a characteristic pattern in the CMB.


"I'd heard about this 'multiverse' for years and years, and I never took it seriously because I thought it's not testable," Dr Peiris told BBC News. "I was just amazed by the idea that you can test for all these other universes out there - it's just mind-blowing."


Dr Peiris' team first proposed these disc-shaped signatures in the CMB in a paper published in Physical Review Letters, and the new work fleshes out the idea, putting numbers to how many bubble universes we may be able to see now.


Crucially, they used a computer program that looked for these discs automatically - reducing the chance that one of the collaborators would see the expected shape in the data when it was not in fact there.
The program found four particular areas that look likely to be signatures of the bubble universes - where the bubbles were 10 times more likely than the standard theory to explain the variations that the team saw in the CMB.


However, Dr Peiris stressed that the four regions were "not at a high statistical significance" - that more data would be needed to be assured of the existence of the "multiverse".


BBC News - 'Multiverse' theory suggested by microwave background

See the infinite regress argument. There must be some original Uncaused Cause with the characteristics I laid out. It is simple logic, no special pleading necessary

Actually, it's special pleading the moment one says that a creator needs no creator but the Universe does. My above objections still apply. It is an arbitrary line drawn in an infinite regress with no support other than saying, "but it must be so," and as such it isn't very convincing to me.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

According to Hawking's latest work in the The Grand Design, it basically says that all the energy in the universe equals out. Gravitational energy is considered negative while energy from matter is considered positive. And by doing the math, the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy (E=mc^2 and all that for the mass energy equivalence).

Note that this neither helps nor hurts either side of the argument. It just helps to prove that at one time space time was at zero. Work by Guth, et al also confirms the mathematics behind this. Work done by them in 2003 says that it is most probable that our universe had a beginning (a time zero and space zero).

This is the same idea as that used in explaining virtual particles. Virtual particles are said to be able to pop into existence without violating conservation laws because they come in pairs, one having positive energy and the other having an equal amount of negative energy. Applying this idea to the universe as a whole at time zero may help to avoid the problem of violating conservation laws.

Although we are not positive as to the exact nature of the singularity, again due to work by Guth et al we are almost entirely positive that, in our inflationary universe a t= 0, s=0 occurred.

Yes, I wasn't attempting to cast doubt on the idea of a "beginning" at time zero in the form of a singularity, since that's the conclusion general relativity gives us. My point has to do with the nature of singularities themselves. A singularity is a point (zero dimensions) where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite. However, this is a byproduct of the model, not a reflection of what the universe was actually like at that time. Here is how Sean Carroll puts it in From Eternity To Here.

We might imagine that there would be some moment, only a finite amount of time ago, when the universe was infinitely dense -- a "singularity." It's that hypothetical singularity that we call "the Big Bang." ...

So what happened before the Big Bang? Here is where many discussions of modern cosmology run off the rails. You will often read something like the following: "Before the Big Bang, time and space did not exist The universe did not come into being at some moment in time, because time itself came into being. Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what lies north of the North Pole."

That all sounds very profound, and it might even be right. But it might not. The truth is we just don't know. The rules of general relativity are unambiguous: Given certain kinds of stuff in the universe, there must have been a singularity in the past. But that's not really an internally consistent conclusion. The singularity itself would be a moment when the curvature of spacetime and the density of matter were infinite, and teh rules of general relativity simply would not apply. The correct deduction is not that general relativity predicts a singularity, but that general relativity predicts that the universe evolves into a configuration where general relativity itself breaks down. The theory itself cannot be considered to be complete; something happens where general relativity predicts singularities, but we don't know what.

Possibly general relativity is not the correct theory of gravity, at least in the context of the extremely early universe. Most physicists suspect that a quantum theory of gravity, reconciling the framework of quantum mechanics with Einstein's ideas about curved spacetime, will ultimately be required to make sense of what happens at the very earliest times. So if someone asks you what really happened at the moment of the purported Big Bang, the only honest answer would be: "I don't know." Once we have a reliable theoretical framework in which we can ask questions about what happens in the extreme conditions characteristic of the early universe, we should be able to figure out the answer, but we don't yet have such a theory.

It might be that the universe simply didn't exist before the Big Bang, just as conventional general relativity seems to imply. Or it might very well be -- as I tend to believe, for reasons that will become clear -- that space and time did exist before the Big Bang; what we call the Bang is a kind of transition from one phase to another.
​

So the point is that although relativy does indeed predict a very special state of affairs in the early universe, we don't really know if this was a true beginning, or whether it was always there, or whether something came before it.

To start off, randomness, and the lack of a discernible cause does not mean that there is a cause lacking.

That's true, but we also don't know that there is a cause, either. Causality is certainly something that we seem to observe in nature, but whether it is a fundamental principle that applies universally or something more specific that only applies in a more limited context is something we can't say with certainty (since we don't know what the most fundamental laws of nature actually are).

In the case of virtual particles, "they are fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. The quantum vacuumis not nothing. It is a roiling sea of energy."

Here is a technically link which explains why they don't violate causality: Some Frequently Asked Questions About Virtual Particles

I think I covered most if not all of your arguments. Please tell me if I didn't.

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

Actually, it's special pleading the moment one says that a creator needs no creator but the Universe does. My above objections still apply. It is an arbitrary line drawn in an infinite regress with no support other than saying, "but it must be so," and as such it isn't very convincing to me.

Thanks for the evidence. As you know, it is definitely not statistically significant nor does it affect this debate (to the best of my knowledge). Secondly, I find it a bit strange that there are four annomolies considering we are supposed to be the bubble from one other universe not four to the best of my knowledge.

As to the special pleading case:

We recognize there must be a cause to the universe.
Infinite regress allows for an infinite past number of universes without our universe being created. Such a concept is logically impossible if we recognize that we ourselves exist.
Therefore, we recognize that there must be a stopping point which I label as an Uncaused Cause.

Which of the above statements do you have a problem with and why?

 

[trust_in_the_name]

Secondly, I find it a bit strange that there are four annomolies considering we are supposed to be the bubble from one other universe not four to the best of my knowledge.

The idea in eternal inflation is that there are all these bubble universes (of which our universe is one) popping up all over the place, and so if some of them happen to have done so close to us then we might be able to see evidence of it in the CMB. The four mentioned would be four other ones near us, not necessarily the one that our own universe came from. I've never heard of this particular study before but in any case eternal inflation is a very hypothetical idea. I think it would be quite a bit of a stretch to say that we have "evidence" of an eternal inflation multiverse at this point (especially since the author even noted that her findings were not statistically significant).

 

[trust_in_the_name]

Thanks for the evidence. As you know, it is definitely not statistically significant nor does it affect this debate (to the best of my knowledge). Secondly, I find it a bit strange that there are four annomolies considering we are supposed to be the bubble from one other universe not four to the best of my knowledge.

As to the special pleading case:

We recognize there must be a cause to the universe.

As I pointed out this isn't foolproof since we don't know for sure that everything has to have a cause.

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

As I pointed out this isn't foolproof since we don't know for sure that everything has to have a cause.

I'm sorry... I must have missed something. I thought I addressed the whole virtual particles and causation thing earlier. Was there something else you had in refutation to my causation point?

 

[Wesley]

Thanks for the evidence. As you know, it is definitely not statistically significant nor does it affect this debate (to the best of my knowledge). Secondly, I find it a bit strange that there are four annomolies considering we are supposed to be the bubble from one other universe not four to the best of my knowledge.

Actually, the quantum-foam hypothesis doesn't stipulate any precise number of other universes.

As far as "statistical significance", of course not, it's one observation, and could well be wrong. But it is observation.

As to the special pleading case:

We recognize there must be a cause to the universe.
Infinite regress allows for an infinite past number of universes without our universe being created. Such a concept is logically impossible if we recognize that we ourselves exist.
Therefore, we recognize that there must be a stopping point which I label as an Uncaused Cause.

Which of the above statements do you have a problem with and why?

The problem lies here: you state that the Universe must have a cause, but you accept that what you allege caused the universe need not have a cause; and yet you refuse to lay out what, exactly, differentiates the two such that one requires a cause, and the other does not.

That is the crux: in the absence of a cogent explanation, that double-standard is entirely arbitrary, and as such, I find it unconvincing.

In order to master this difficulty, you'll need to explain why the rule "all things must have a cause" need not apply to your "Uncaused Cause".

I'm not here to badger you about this, though, and I don't think that you'll agree with me, no matter how tightly I reason this; so if I am getting tiresome to you, say as much, I'm cool. You have faith, I don't, and I can accept that.

I appreciate your smart, and courteous, replies.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

I'm sorry... I must have missed something. I thought I addressed the whole virtual particles and causation thing earlier. Was there something else you had in refutation to my causation point?

The only thing you said about causality was:

To start off, randomness, and the lack of a discernible cause does not mean that there is a cause lacking.

This doesn't show that causality is a universal principle, or for that matter that it is even a valid principle in the first place.

Then you said:

We recognize there must be a cause to the universe.

If causality is not known to be a universal (or valid) principle then it doesn't follow that there must be a cause to the universe.

 

[Tsalagi]

My girlfriend is a former Christian. She's now an atheist.

Your friends probably know the Bible just as well as you do. There's nothing you can really tell them to make them go back to Christianity.

 

[rainacorn]

My girlfriend is a former Christian. She's now an atheist.

Your friends probably know the Bible just as well as you do. There's nothing you can really tell them to make them go back to Christianity.

It's funny that so many teenage atheists know their Bibles backwards and forwards when teenage Christians often find it quite a struggle to dedicate time to Biblical study.

I say 'funny' but what I mean is that I am extremely skeptical. Literally (no exaggeration) every teenage atheist I have met knows the Bible through filters of atheist propaganda. Their arguments are weak and repetitive, and although they've been blown apart and picked apart a hundred times over, they still lean on those tired old arguments because it is news to them. They haven't actually studied or made any attempt to understand, they've just hung out in the internet echo chamber.

Just a little bit of honest study (which they claim to have done as Christians) would invalidate most of their arguments and disagreements immediately.

This is, of course, a generalization. I do not know your girlfriend.