LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksNo, An atheist just thinks non-existence is what is most likely to happen. The best is still Heaven, Valhalla, or whatever afterlife there may be.
No, An atheist just thinks non-existence is what is most likely to happen. The best is still Heaven, Valhalla, or whatever afterlife there may be.
Even better:Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
A skeptic just realizes that there is no evidence to support the claim that there is anything after death, therefore there are no good reasons to accept said claim.
... yes, exactly. Either way, non-existence isn't very appealing to me, though I see no rational reason to believe otherwise. In accordance with the conjecture that no matter nor energy has been ultimately created nor destroyed since the beginning of the universe, it can be inferred that that means no matter/energy has left this universe since its inception. Based on that, were there a heaven, then it would have to be in this universe, otherwise our 'soul' couldn't get there. And based on the cosmological speed limit, it would have to rather close for there to be any kind of 'quick' ascension unto said heaven.
IF there is a soul, it is simply electrical energy in the brain that animates the body. nothing special. Were it anything else, it would be able to be detected as something that lives on after the body dies, and would be traceable to heaven/hell, were those two things to exist (soul and an afterlife).
Now, rationally speaking, why should I believe I will live on after death?
Arc
"The influences of an atom of hydrogen at the other side of the universe will have an effect on you and I, but is a perceivable effect?"
A relationship is a relationship, perceivable or not.
Just think of all the people living on the other side of the world who have never heard of you and most likely never will. It helps to make the exercise a little easier.
Don't forget that any time matter is converted to energy or vice versa a little energy is lost to heat. This is called entropy and it's how we know that both matter and energy will slowly diminish over the eons until nothing is left.
If there were a "heaven" that was part of our universe and subject to it's natural laws, then entropy would eventually wipe it out as well.
Meaning Hubble would be able to see it (if we knew where to point it).
Well then why waste any time on the proposition at all?
I would hope so as well.
Not true. 'Heat' is ambient kinetic energy, still energy, and not something that will allow the universe to diminish into nothingness.Don't forget that any time matter is converted to energy or vice versa a little energy is lost to heat. This is called entropy and it's how we know that both matter and energy will slowly diminish over the eons until nothing is left.
what does the vacuum that is space have to do with it? There is still matter throughout space, everywhere. It just gets few and far between after a while, something on the order of 3 particles in a liter between galaxies.
Entropy, being a measure of "useless" energy as wiki points out, is essentially the ambient heat of the universe, and, were everything to be compressed into a singularity, the gravitational energy would become "useless" and you'd have a rather static system.
Nothing at all about the universe just slowly diminishing out of existence.
Your argument was that there would still be heat, however heat cannot be maintained in a vacuum. Eventually, the universe will dissipate because everything will be too far away from everything else and heat will be lost to the vacuum. No more matter. No more energy.
If you think I'm full of it, let's take this over to the Astronomy and Cosmology forum and let the experts chime in.
there is only heat where there is matter, and even in a vacuum, if there is moving matter, there is heat.
Right. And if there is no matter? Then what?
Eventually everything will be gone. Again, if you doubt me, let's take this over to the appropriate forum and discuss it there.
EDIT: Link.
Everything will be spread out, and the average density of heat will be below what we can measure, but this is not the same as saying there will be nothing. Relative to nothing, there will always be something, somewhere, no matter how far apart.
Okay. If you want to consider one sub-atomic particle per square lightyear as "something", then nothing I can say will change your mind.
Back to your original point, where would your "heaven" be in this scenario?
"If you want to consider one sub-atomic particle per square lightyear as "something""
Indeed, one particle per square lightyear is something. 0.0000000001 particles per square lightyear is also something. "Nothing" is an absolute, hence you can't say "This is more nothing that that"
when there is ZERO anywhere, there is nothing, until then there is nothing(zero anywhere) you can say to convince me otherwise.
and whose original point are you talking about?
3rd post from the top of the page.
If I had to spend eternity with the likes of idiot theists, I would most certainly prefer roasting in hell.
Good I will give you a few potatos to take with you to roast, I love roast potatos!!
I'm assuming you mean that entropy will be maximized?
Clearly entropy is happening, so to say "there is no entropy" seems like an odd statement to make.
Back to the point though, where is "heaven" when entropy has been maximized?
???
if there is no matter and no energy, there is no useless energy, and therefore no entropy. entropy, in your universe, zeroes out. Since that can't happen, there must ALWAYS be matter AND energy. Sorry, check the link to the physics thread, the second post refutes your point quite well.
You had said that continuing the discussion in another sub-forum would be appropriate, I created 2 such threads for this discussion. Feel free to chime in on either one, and we can see who gets the backing of the relative communities.
No, entropy is maximized.
If you are going to insist that it can't happen, I am going to insist on seeing some sort of supporting evidence.
Yeah and every other post supports it. Is this a democracy or a meritocracy?
Indeed. In the mean time, I'm still waiting for you to address the "heaven" part. That is where this all started after all.
As the space between particles increases, entropy will lessen. Entropy is not the loss of energy, it's the equilibrium of energy caused by particle interactions.
The greater distance between particles, the less interaction; the less interaction, the less entropy.
This model doesn't take into account zero point energy though. Not that there's much to take into account... nothing but the infinite potential of complete randomness.
I'll refer you back to the link.
You know what else it doesn't account for? Any of the assertions made by A_M in his post.
What link?
"The universe now reaches an extremely low-energy state. What happens after this is speculative."
This is not the same as "everything will become nothing"
I'm not sure if "low-energy state" is a measure of total energy, or average energy. I would assume that it's average energy, because I see no mention of the law of conservation being defied... even though it would need to be for the total energy in the universe to be lessened.
*sigh*
There. Will. Be. No. More. Stars. Planets. Nebulae. Black holes. Et Cetera.
(yes, there will be matter but it will exist on atomic or sub-atomic scales. Any existing energy won't have anything to do.)
So here is the question, one more time: Where is this cosmic "heaven" that A_M posits?
Fabulous. I'm hoping you'll remember what you posted with regards to entropy a few posts back and what I've been saying about "maximum entropy" will begin to sink in for you.
Phoenix, could you please quote where I said there was a Heaven. I made no such comment.
You said:
"Based on that, were there a heaven, then it would have to be in this universe, otherwise our 'soul' couldn't get there."
I said:
"If there were a "heaven" that was part of our universe and subject to it's natural laws, then entropy would eventually wipe it out as well."
You then digressed on a tangent about entropy.
So, as I have repeated for what feels like the millionth time:
"where would your "heaven" be in this scenario?"
P.S. I am not in slightest bit interested in how you want to slice or dice this question. I just want you to answer it. If this physical heaven that you want to hypothesize about sounds ridiculous to you upon further reflection, then we're in agreement and can probably move on now.
"Your bloody leg's off!"
"No it isn't."
This is funny. I don't think Arcane was seriously implying that there is a heaven. Assuming he was, lets apply some scientific reasoning to the question about where it would be.
First of all what is it?
Careful, MC. This is precisely what I was trying to do and look where that got us.
P.S. I'm not sure if A_M was offering this up in seriousness or not. My attempts to even fetter out that little bit of info have been ignored.
they were ignored because I never said there WAS a heaven, read the post again, I disregarded the possibility of a heaven immediately after I suggested it. BUT, if you would like (and all past conversations indicate the opposite) to simply ignore logic and have me play devils advocate, then by all means, Heaven MAY (NOT will, the Big Freeze is as verifiable as the Big Bang, sorry; no absolutes) be wiped out of existence if it exists, and I have NO idea where it might be, possibly in that giant head of yours, I don't know.
Really? Because as per my MO I responded to each of the points in your post. None of the sentences I quoted "immediately disregarded the possibility".
I will agree that many of them didn't make a whole lot of sense (hence my asking for you to clarify). That you didn't simply reply the first time with "hehe, I was only kidding" and instead opted to drag this out for several pages makes it a little difficult for me to accept now.
You can spend your time however you wish. Of course, my preference would be that you respond to counter-arguments/queries when they are raised. Obviously, this isn't a priority for you, but as I have already said your time is your prerogative.
Wow. Look at that. You managed to address all of my points in one (very long) sentence. Now the only thing left to ponder is why it took you 5 days and 20+ posts to do so.
If the point of your original post was too discount the idea of heaven, and if you do acknowledge that entropy would wipe out a physical heaven (along with any other thing that we would tend to consider as "macroscopic mass"), then I don't understand why all this was necessary.
rationally, why would I feel any of the above is even remotely true?
Great question. Perhaps, I wrote this to find out:
Sir, may I suggest that the problem we had here is that for some reason, you think I am capable of reading your mind?Just think of all the people living on the other side of the world who have never heard of you and most likely never will. It helps to make the exercise a little easier.
Don't forget that any time matter is converted to energy or vice versa a little energy is lost to heat. This is called entropy and it's how we know that both matter and energy will slowly diminish over the eons until nothing is left.
If there were a "heaven" that was part of our universe and subject to it's natural laws, then entropy would eventually wipe it out as well.
Meaning Hubble would be able to see it (if we knew where to point it).
Well then why waste any time on the proposition at all?
I would hope so as well.
may I suggest its that you dissect complete thoughts into partials and digress from there, to the point that making a thought and then, AT THE END, saying it's irrational, AS I DID, mind you, is lost to you, may be the problem? Perhaps you have an attention issue and can't comprehend a longer thought than a sentence or two?Great question. Perhaps, I wrote this to find out:
Sir, may I suggest that the problem we had here is that for some reason, you think I am capable of reading your mind?Just think of all the people living on the other side of the world who have never heard of you and most likely never will. It helps to make the exercise a little easier.
Don't forget that any time matter is converted to energy or vice versa a little energy is lost to heat. This is called entropy and it's how we know that both matter and energy will slowly diminish over the eons until nothing is left.
If there were a "heaven" that was part of our universe and subject to it's natural laws, then entropy would eventually wipe it out as well.
Meaning Hubble would be able to see it (if we knew where to point it).
Well then why waste any time on the proposition at all?
I would hope so as well.
You didn't say it was irrational. At no point did you even try to rule it out. In fact you were quite careful to qualify your statements with "if"s. Not that this is a bad thing (we cannot prove that souls don't exist, therefore the qualifier is necessary), but again this makes it appear as though you want to have it both ways.
I guess I'm still not seeing why it took 5 days to get here if this is what you actually wanted say.
If you find my point-by-point responses to be problematic, imagine how your multi-day tangents appear to me.
Yet somehow it seems to always be me trying to keep you on topic. Odd.
Because, in 5 days, this was still contained in my first post
And I thought that was clear enough, as at the least you could see that I questioned the rationality, and at best that I was disregarding the possibility of heaven as a pointless thing to believe to exist. You claimed, after several posts mind you (not even MY post, it was Marcus's), that I posited a heaven somewhere in the universe and wanted me to tell you where it would be in the scenario of entropy. That, in and of itself, is irrelevant. Locations are relative, and if entropy wipes out all complex matter, than obviously heaven would go with it. Why bother asking that question?
Indeed, however as I have been pointing out, nothing that you said preceding that sentence suggests that you were ruling it out at all. In fact, your first full sentence ("Either way, non-existence isn't very appealing to me, though I see no rational reason to believe otherwise.") would indicate that you are inclined to hold some sort of believe regarding an afterlife even though you admittedly have no rational reason for doing so.
Because you didn't seem to be accounting for it. Furthermore, when I pointed out that you weren't accounting for it, you wanted to debate how entropy worked (going so far to create new posts in two other separate forums).
So again, all I'm getting is the impression that you want to have it both ways (defending the contents of your posts for 5 days and now insisting that I had misinterpreted them for 2).
I'm perfectly willing to accept that a miscommunication has taken place and move on (we appear quite settled on the science now, unless I am mistaken). And I don't suppose I can stop you if you want to campaign to make it seem like the fault was entirely mine. However since I have nothing else better to do with my time, I'll be happy to continue pointing out your role in this as well for as long as you wish to remain on this path.
| « "Future IT" | Symphony of flight » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
