Oldskeptic wrote:How can someone claim to understand Greene’s writing, or even be well acquainted with it and not know the relationship between string theory and branes?

Spectacularly good question, and a headshot. If I had not been reading from a proxy from which I could not post when I read this vacuous comment, I would have posted much the same in response.

@Hachenslash:
Here is what Maryann is going on about. It begins on page 404 and ends at page 412.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DNd2K6 ... al&f=false

Because of increasing entropy even in cyclical models cycles cannot be eternal. Therefore the “universe” had a beginning, and of course something had to be the “cause” of the beginning. Therefore God made it so.

Well, if you read the Greene on this point, he does concede that entropy seems to provide a barrier to an eternal past, but this actually constitutes an assumption. Firstly, the 2LT is an experimental law, and may only be a feature of the coarse-graining of our four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, and it isn't clear at all that the 2LT applies in all cases, and especially in the instantiation of said spacetime. In other words, this constitutes a fallacy of composition. Secondly, what is admitted by all advocates of the brane-worlds model is that the mathematics at the 'bounce' is incomplete, and indeed may remain so. It may well be that 'dark energy' or some form of cosmological constant has some part yet to play in all of this. Ultimately, the poster is talking through his arse, and asserting categorically that which is not established. Finally, any citation of entropy in the aforementioned book is subject to my major objection cited earlier, although this is a more trivial concern, and may not actually be applicable in this instance.

I've just pulled the book off the shelf and I will scan the pages in question again to see just what it is he is saying. What is absolutely clear here, though, is that our interloper hasn't actually read the book, or she would have made the connection between M-Theory and the brane-worlds model, since Greene explicitly talks about M-theory and its connection to the work of Turok and Steinhardt.

Ichthus77 wrote:For those who disagree the atheist position is one of faith (and the agnostic position one of bad faith) read this:
http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/reasons-for-faith-101-is-atheism-a-belief-or-a-lack-of-faith

That's all I have time for this morning. Have a beautiful day.

From your blog post:

Atheists who lack belief in God, believe, more or less, that God does not exist, as well as, like Greta, sometimes believing in "something bigger". Bare minimum, atheists believe in a world without God.

I disagree. It would be more accurate to say "at a bare minimum, atheists do not believe in a world with God".

These statements are not semantically equivalent, and if you treat them as if they are you are going to come up with some strange conclusions. Let me try to illustrate the difference:

1) Supposed I ask you the question "Do you believe that I have a dog?"

2) "No" would be a reasonable position to hold. You don't have any evidence whether I do or don't own a dog.

3) Would you agree that it would be an error to conclude that "Ichthus77 believes that xrayzed does not have a dog"?

Do you think atheists must thinkn like Dawkins or something ?

-- IIzo

See the title of the thread.

It is not a contradiction to be rooting for something one doesn't know for sure is even true. Happens all the time.

I get accused of claiming to know something by folks who sound pretty sure they know I'm wrong. Ironic.

I guess you have trouble with people not doing belief without jusfitication.

I like how you said "doing" belief. I think all beliefs ought to be justified, but that none are "absolutely" justified--all require faith. This is relevant: http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/justified-true-belief-and-knowledge-of-moral-truth

Bud's Brain...takes guts to stick out like that. At Richard Dawkins' old forum, and at the Reason Project, I reported a poster after many attempts to "self-police" and nothing was done about it. Now I usually just ignore offensive stuff (not the person, just the stuff...if they say something relevant, I'll reply) if self-policing doesn't work.

OldSkeptic,

Regarding my knowledge of Greene, it's like my knowledge of virtually every other book I've read. I don't memorize the whole book. Some things stand out. I explained earlier in this thread the reason I even bought the book, which had nothing at all to do w/ the first cause argument. And I'm not going to ignore relevant quotes just to avoid the "quote mine" objection I've heard fifty billion times.

Branes...yep, I don't remember how they are a connection between M and cycles which would make them not mutually exclusive...sorry. Is it important to this discussion? Right after I read the book, if you'd've asked me, I might've known. Then again, much of the book was over my head. I've never even taken a basic physics class, so...

the universe had a beginning is not a given. That the universe as we know it began a finite span of time ago is, but that has nothing to do with what the universe was like before.

Infinitely hot dense quark-gluon plasma or cold dead infinitely large 3branes are two models that fit with what we do know of the expansion that ensued, and there are others,

Began...had a beginning...two very different things, apparently. And, no doubt, before it began...before it had its beginning...there's no telling what it was like (when it wasn't...yet).

With people like Maryann all roads lead to God

Yes, that directly addresses my argument. Well done.

xrayzed--

If someone simply has not decided yes or no about whether God exists, and so has no definitive belief that a God exists (or that a God doesn't exist), that does not mean they are an atheist--it means they are agnostic (perhaps there is a better word for it, since gnosis is knowledge, not just belief). If they claim to be an atheist, they are claiming to have a belief that God does not exist. If they don't want to be accused of "believing" something, they shouldn't adopt such a strong title.

If the "some other being" is not subject to entropy, then all the math/logic about entropy does not apply to that "some other being". But math/logic itself would indeed apply, originating from/in it.

It is possible means it is possible. Please not that a lack of belief that something is true is not logically equivalent to an active belief that it is false.

My reason for favouring a non-theistic explanation is essentially inductive:

Evidence that a non-sentient universe exists: massive.
Evidence for a god: none.

The possibilities I was referring to are not reflected in the two you gave (which are not mutually exclusive). If you really believe there is no evidence for a God, then you have concluded that God does not exist, or you have settled on a concept of God which is unworthy of the title.

We could talk about this forever, but that isn't why I'm participating here. I just came here to share the bootstrap gambit, is all....and invite folks to submit something to the Philosophers' Carnival.

It is quite possible (but not necessary - eg see Hawking's "no boundary" proposal) to say the universe began at the Big Bang, and equally to assert that the universe has always existed, if we are careful to distinguish between two conceptions of "the universe".

In the former case we're talking about the immediate universe of connected space-time that we can live in and can observe: the one with c. 10^11 galaxies, mainly empty space, about 13.7 billion years old, has various Laws that describe how various aspects work etc.

In the latter case we're talking about everything that exists that could include other universes/metaverses/ominverse/whatever-we-choose-to-call-them-verses. So something, say space and time, have always existed, and our universe is simply one branch of that universe.

To distinguish between them we could talk about our immediate universe (lower case) as opposed to the Universe (upper case). The universe began to exist. But there are parts of the Universe that have always existed.

Why didn't Greene talk about any of this? What is Hawking's "no boundary" proposal?

Partly because he was dealing with his own work and not dealing with wilfully malfeasant equivocation between the two meanings of the universe? Right now there are models with pre-big bang cosmic expansions, and Hawking's no-boundary proposal is an alternative, with no pre-big bang physics, but both of these are talking about our local cosmic expansion, while the term the Universe means all there in.

Hawking's no boundary proposal is the astrophysical equivalent of asking what is North of the North Pole?

And of course if you think that if one person doesn't write something about a lot of the prevalent alternatives the alternatives need not be considered you're plain wrong, not least because science is a collaborative enterprise, to put it that way.

genes, no, the alternatives are interesting to me, actually, and he may have actually mentioned them, but I'm pretty sure they would've stood out more. Perhaps he just didn't frame them the way xrayzed did. He may have mentioned the no boundary thing.

Ichthus77 wrote:

Do you think atheists must thinkn like Dawkins or something ?

-- IIzo

See the title of the thread.

Sure but you used the equivocation "the atheist" and would rather discuss the person more than the argument.

It is not a contradiction to be rooting for something one doesn't know for sure is even true. Happens all the time.

And this is supposed to answer what ?Knowing that a method can give result is a problem or something?

I get accused of claiming to know something by folks who sound pretty sure they know I'm wrong. Ironic.

Because your actively say that this somehow proves god's existence when you justify and quote mine.Whereas the reste of us just list the alternatives and say that nothing is known and your conclusions simply fallacious presuppositions.

I guess you have trouble with people not doing belief without jusfitication.

I like how you said "doing" belief. I think all beliefs ought to be justified, but that none are "absolutely" justified--all require faith. This is relevant: http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/justified-true-belief-and-knowledge-of-moral-truth

So basically you think that Belief=faith right of the bat ,and guess what ,No skeptics claims absolute knowledge as in "absoulute justification" , the belief we hold using evidences are relatives to those ,and we keep the open mind to change those beliefs when they are falsified .
Btw, i've noticed on the article you linked that NOWHERE you give a definition of "faith".And for that reason the definition is left to the reader .And as far i am concerned the definition is this : "belief Without or Against justification and evidences".
From this simple definition that is agreed amongst many here ,your whole article is simply self contradictory.
So either you give the definition of "faith" you use in this article , either you admit the logical contradictions that the definitions implies.

IIzO wrote:
Btw, i've noticed on the article you linked that NOWHERE you give a definition of "faith".And for that reason the definition is left to the reader .And as far i am concerned the definition is this : "belief Without or Against justification and evidences".
From this simple definition that is agreed amongst many here ,your whole article is simply self contradictory.
So either you give the definition of "faith" you use in this article , either you admit the logical contradictions that the definitions implies.

Even her supposed holy word makes it clear that faith is belief without justification but only in hope that "things unseen" are true.
Hebrews 11:1
Young's Literal Translation: "And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction"
New International Version: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see"
New American Standard Bible: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"

In other words, conviction without evidence, without having to see anything first as justification.

The ordinary dictionary definition doesn't help Maryann, either.

Faith
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b : (1) fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a : (1) belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b : (1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
— on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

So more distortion and equivocation on the accepted meaning of terms from the so-called christian "philosopher".

Ichthus77 wrote:
Bud's Brain...takes guts to stick out like that. At Richard Dawkins' old forum, and at the Reason Project, I reported a poster after many attempts to "self-police" and nothing was done about it. Now I usually just ignore offensive stuff (not the person, just the stuff...if they say something relevant, I'll reply) if self-policing doesn't work.

Oh, isn't that just so special. Maryann took time to congratulate Bud's Brain for "policing" the forum, but Maryann didn't take time to police her own conduct - in the form of the lie she wrote about what Greta said - nor did Maryann choose to display the guts to make the public apology she owes to Greta for distorting her words like that.

How about it, Maryann, are you going to make the apology you owe ?

Or is my moral claim on your repentance for your transgression just not "relevant" enough for you ?

ANy danger of answering the valid objections, or is it just the usual credulous duck'n'dive?

Ichthus77 wrote:If someone simply has not decided yes or no about whether God exists, and so has no definitive belief that a God exists (or that a God doesn't exist), that does not mean they are an atheist--it means they are agnostic (perhaps there is a better word for it, since gnosis is knowledge, not just belief). If they claim to be an atheist, they are claiming to have a belief that God does not exist. If they don't want to be accused of "believing" something, they shouldn't adopt such a strong title.

I love it when you get a theist that tells us atheists what we actually believe, and how the definitions of words can be changed at will simply to support shaky positions.

Perhaps I could have a go; atheism actually means you have an ability to turn blue when shocked, whereas agnosticism means you can't wear matching socks on Tuesdays.

I don't 'believe' in anything. I conside bible stories, christian doctrine, gods, goddesses, demons, superheroes - all of it really, as fiction. By dictionary definition, that makes me an atheist, and a lot of other a-[insert word here].

I consider evolution to be correct - NOT TRUE - as it's not a doctrine. Ditto for paleantology, biology etc. All of these branches, in my opinion, can't be claimed to be 'true' by either side . They do not require faith to be claimed as true or false - they are simply correct or incorrect. Doctrines require faith and are not flexible or renewable.

Symantics? Perhaps. But I actively avoid words such as 'I believe in' or 'it's True'. It's also 'true' that I'm not an expert at any of it, which would make a statement of 'I believe it's TRUE' even more absurd in the face of my ignorance.

It's my way of leveling my playing field. I've yet to find a doctrine / discipline for which I'm ready to die.
Policing forums is not my hobby, BTW. We all know when we're crossing the FUA.

trubble76 wrote:

Ichthus77 wrote:If someone simply has not decided yes or no about whether God exists, and so has no definitive belief that a God exists (or that a God doesn't exist), that does not mean they are an atheist--it means they are agnostic (perhaps there is a better word for it, since gnosis is knowledge, not just belief). If they claim to be an atheist, they are claiming to have a belief that God does not exist. If they don't want to be accused of "believing" something, they shouldn't adopt such a strong title.

I love it when you get a theist that tells us atheists what we actually believe, and how the definitions of words can be changed at will simply to support shaky positions.

Perhaps I could have a go; atheism actually means you have an ability to turn blue when shocked, whereas agnosticism means you can't wear matching socks on Tuesdays.

Even Maryann knows what she did there isn't right, but she did it anyway. See that little clause "perhaps there is a better word for it, since gnosis is knowledge" ? That's the giveaway that Maryann is deliberately choosing to misuse the word for her propaganda.

Maryann wrote:
Regarding my knowledge of Greene, it's like my knowledge of virtually every other book I've read. I don't memorize the whole book.

Well you could at least try to understand the sections that you pull your quotes from.

Maryann wrote:
Branes...yep, I don't remember how they are a connection between M and cycles which would make them not mutually exclusive...sorry. Is it important to this discussion?

You tell me, you’re the one that brought up Greene and used his explanation of Turok’s cyclical model to show that Greene doesn’t believe in an “eternal universe“.

Oldskeptic wrote:
the universe had a beginning is not a given. That the universe as we know it began a finite span of time ago is, but that has nothing to do with what the universe was like before.

Infinitely hot dense quark-gluon plasma or cold dead infinitely large 3branes are two models that fit with what we do know of the expansion that ensued, and there are others,

Maryann wrote:
Began...had a beginning...two very different things, apparently. And, no doubt, before it began...before it had its beginning...there's no telling what it was like (when it wasn't...yet).

“The universe as we know it” and “the universe” are two different things. The former is what we can observe the latter is everything that exists or has ever existed. Hackenslash has tried to explain this more than once I believe, but you seem to be deaf to it, and even misrepresent what I said above.

The universe as we know it could be something that exists in the universe. So when I say that the universe having a beginning is not a given I mean that we, as in no one, knows whether it did or didn’t or even could have had a beginning.

And the universe as we know it could be just a different form of something that existed prior to when the universe as we know it began. The big bang model has this something as an almost infinitely hot, dense singularity at maximum entropy. Turok’s model has this as a cold almost infinitely large 3brane at maximum entropy colliding with another 3brane at maximum entropy. Either way what began was something changing into something else with no loss or gain in total energy.

Combine E=MC2 with the first law of thermodynamics and it becomes clear that the “beginning” of the universe as we know it was the conversion of total potential energy into other forms of energy. Nothing created. No actual beginning out of nothing. And no evidence that any intelligence was required.

Oldskeptic wrote:
With people like Maryann all roads lead to God

Maryann wrote:
Yes, that directly addresses my argument. Well done.

If you are going to truncate my sentences then at least have the integrity to indicate it by using an ellipsis.

Full sentence:

With people like Maryann all roads lead to God and never to question marks or statements such as, “I don‘t know.”

My purpose in that segment wasn’t to address your argument. It was to address Hackenslash’s question of what you were talking about. The sentence above that you plundered and dismembered was a comment about people like you that have a simple apologetic agenda: Defend the “God concept” at all costs. Why bother with fact checking or understanding concepts behind quotes used. Never mind intellectual integrity.

The columns you write and the posts you make here make it clear that you know diddlysquat about anything other than memorized apologetic arguments that have been demolished over and over again.

Maryann wrote:
And I'm not going to ignore relevant quotes just to avoid the "quote mine" objection I've heard fifty billion times.

These quotes are not relevant just because when taken out of context they give an impression of supporting your argument. They are only relevant if you understand them and use them in context.

Maryann wrote:
Branes...yep, I don't remember how they are a connection between M and cycles which would make them not mutually exclusive...sorry. Is it important to this discussion? Right after I read the book, if you'd've asked me, I might've known. Then again, much of the book was over my head. I've never even taken a basic physics class, so...

It is the same with concepts and ideas. If you don’t understand them or the subject matter then you have no justification for using them other than cherry picking and quote mining for things that you think, but do not know, support your argument.

Xrayzed wrote:
It is quite possible (but not necessary - eg see Hawking's "no boundary" proposal) to say the universe began at the Big Bang, and equally to assert that the universe has always existed, if we are careful to distinguish between two conceptions of "the universe".

In the former case we're talking about the immediate universe of connected space-time that we can live in and can observe: the one with c. 10^11 galaxies, mainly empty space, about 13.7 billion years old, has various Laws that describe how various aspects work etc.

In the latter case we're talking about everything that exists that could include other universes/metaverses/ominverse/whatever-we-choose-to-call-them-verses. So something, say space and time, have always existed, and our universe is simply one branch of that universe.

To distinguish between them we could talk about our immediate universe (lower case) as opposed to the Universe (upper case). The universe began to exist. But there are parts of the Universe that have always existed.

Maryann wrote:
Why didn't Greene talk about any of this?

Given your admitted limited reading comprehension how do you know that he didn’t?

Mkay...well...this makes me want to reread Greene, so I will, but I've got these epistemology books that are first in line.

Hackenslash--which valid and relevant-to-what-I-actually-said objection(s) did I miss?

Bud's Brain, truth just means "corresponds to reality". Evolution has so much evidence supporting it, you can go ahead and call it true, or truth. For the sake of humility, though, we won't say we are absolutely certain of it. We'll leave room for faith==not unreasoned, blind faith, of course--totally justified faith...just not "absolutely certain".

trubble, hotshoe, and anyone else included in this aspect of the discussion: if atheism is not a positive belief (in a world with no God, or in the nonexistence of God), but rather a lack of belief (in the existence of God, or in a world with God), then...

I give you...

hehehe *snort*

THE NEW THEISM.

The theism of the New Theism is not a belief, but a lack of belief--a lack of belief in a world with no God--a lack of belief in the nonexistence of God--because, there is just no evidence for the belief that there is no God. All the evidence (who? we dunno who...it couldn't be atheists, because they don't believe anything...) use to support the nonexistence of God is in fact irrational gibberish invented by spin doctors and regurgitated by the unthinking masses. Their strongest evidence--the argument from evil--contradicts itself when you consider that if there is not always a real good (God) to which moral truth always corresponds, then there is no real evil (and thus no real argument from evil). And it is answered by the reality that if God, like an evil dictator, did not allow us to choose evil, the choice of Golden Rule love-despite-circumstances would be impossible--and he promises a happy ending for all those who choose it (or, at least, do not reject it). Therefore, going with our intuition that there is a real good, we favor a theistic conclusion (there is no faith involved in this, but somehow, we are not quite certain, either), but really we just lack belief in the nonexistence of God. We don't really believe anything.

Seriously. That's what y'all atheists sound like.

Unfortunately, atheism as 'lack of belief in gods' isn't subject to double-negative wordplay.

'a lack of belief in a world with no God' = 'a belief in a world with God'

hehe chuckle snort etc.

Pardon.

Maryan wrote:
Mkay...well...this makes me want to reread Greene, so I will, but I've got these epistemology books that are first in line.

How are more philosophical opinions about the theory of knowledge going to help you?

Maryan wrote:
Hackenslash--which valid and relevant-to-what-I-actually-said objection(s) did I miss?

I pointed out at least one in my previous post, but I think that Hackenslash is probably including every point of argument that you have ducked/ignored on this thread.

Maryan wrote:

trubble, hotshoe, and anyone else included in this aspect of the discussion: if atheism is not a positive belief (in a world with no God, or in the nonexistence of God), but rather a lack of belief (in the existence of God, or in a world with God), then...

I give you...

hehehe *snort*

THE NEW THEISM.

The theism of the New Theism is not a belief, but a lack of belief--a lack of belief in a world with no God--a lack of belief in the nonexistence of God--because, there is just no evidence for the belief that there is no God. All the evidence (who? we dunno who...it couldn't be atheists, because they don't believe anything...) use to support the nonexistence of God is in fact irrational gibberish invented by spin doctors and regurgitated by the unthinking masses. Their strongest evidence--the argument from evil--contradicts itself when you consider that if there is not always a real good (God) to which moral truth always corresponds, then there is no real evil (and thus no real argument from evil). And it is answered by the reality that if God, like an evil dictator, did not allow us to choose evil, the choice of Golden Rule love-despite-circumstances would be impossible--and he promises a happy ending for all those who choose it (or, at least, do not reject it). Therefore, going with our intuition that there is a real good, we favor a theistic conclusion (there is no faith involved in this, but somehow, we are not quite certain, either), but really we just lack belief in the nonexistence of God. We don't really believe anything.

Seriously. That's what y'all atheists sound like.

Seriously, you are beginning to sound a bit disturbed mentally. If God does not exist then evil does not exist? God is an evil dictator that allows us to choose to follow the “Golden rule” so that there can be a happy ending?

Save your hehehe and *snort* for your “faithful” followers. Here your premature bragging just sounds the braying of a purposely ill-informed mule.

So we can safely suggest that among the other things Maryann refuses to admit into her worldview, she won't admit a simple wikipedia entry:

wiki wrote:Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without gods"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

and:

wiki wrote:Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.
Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Therefore, some THEISTS are AGNOSTIC, in that they believe in the existence of at least one deity, but in that they also philosophically conclude that such deity is inherently unknown/unknowable. Some THEISTS are GNOSTIC, in that they believe in the existence of at least one deity, and they conclude that the truth of such deity is knowable. This is not necessarily a justified stance - but probably describes the unthinking faith of most christians, who believe that they "know".

And, therefore, some ATHEISTS are AGNOSTIC, in that they don't have a belief in at least one deity, but in that they have also concluded that it is not possible to know. Some ATHEISTS are GNOSTIC, in that they state that it is certainly knowable whether or not such deity exists.

It is not possible to simplify this four-way logical division any further without losing a critical dimension of the truth.

But why bother with the real meanings of the words, when a deliberate distortion of them allows Maryann to write her smug tripe mocking the atheists for "not knowing" just after she writes lies about atheists having the same kind of unjustified faith she does, only in a different direction. Good one, Maryann, yet another master example.

Ichthus77 wrote:Hackenslash--which valid and relevant-to-what-I-actually-said objection(s) did I miss?

Relevant to what you said? Who said reality gives a flying fuck what you said, not least because it was all dishonest, not understood (yes, you have no fucking understanding of physics whatsoever), or flat out wrong.