Are you an atheist? (3 Viewers)

[Isaac]

There may be a God but not "Gods" for sure...

Well said! To believe in truth is to believe in absolute truth, there is no such thing as two contradictory truths, at least not those which are worth paying any attention to.

There is either god or there is not God. There is not everyone's pet invention of it

 

[prabha_friend]

It always begs the question, if you think an entity (God) created something misleadingly labelled as random, who created that entity? Why should a law of creation apply to water and not therefore to the entity that creates water? You are suggesting cause and effect, but arbitrarily curtail that chain at God.

That's what science is trying to uncover

 

[ColinEssex]

There is either god or there is not God. There is not everyone's pet invention of it

How do you know which god is the right god? It could be Hindu or any other of the 100 gods people worship. There's little or no evidence Christianity is the right choice.
Col

 

[Jon]

I think the Gods draw straws.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you consider water, there is a hell of a lot of reasons that it shouldnt do what it does, however it is a remarkable substance all caused by the 120 odd degree effect of its lone pair.

And now you turned on my other hat - the PhD chemist. The 120-degree effect isn't anything other than the fact that with four fat, juicy electron clouds, the optimum position for each cloud, caused by electrostatic repulsion between like charges, is on the line between the center and a vertex of a perfect tetrahedron. Which, when observed from directly above one of the vertices, shows the OTHER three points to be 120 degrees apart in two dimensions. But, in fact, they are three-dimensional and the angle between the center-lines of ANY two of the vertices is 120 degrees.

The oxygen atom, when it bonds with two hydrogen atoms, has TWO electron clouds sitting there all exposed, fat, and juicy - plus two electron clouds cuddling up with their little hydrogen atoms. The presence of the hydrogen atoms induces the orbitals to distort into that tetrahedral shape.

You want to see some other nice, regular solids? Phosphate does the same exact thing, forming a regular tetrahedron. How about Molybdenum in the form of hydrated molybdic acid? That does an octahedron, an eight-sided but six-pointed solid. It is ALSO one of the regular Euclidian solids. It is a matter of math and electrostatic physics that creates the shape you just mentioned. You could, I suppose, claim that God laid that groundwork, but I have to tell you, hearing that "magical, mystical shape of water" mantra isn't inspiring to me.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think the Gods draw straws.

Really, Jon? Are you sure that they aren't playing at dice - just to spite Einstein?

 

[Crash101]

The Doc Man - water is odd because its not 120o. The lone pairs push the hydrogen atoms around a bit. I think it is something like 105 sh from memory. If it didnt do this water would not behave like it does. Fluke, chance, its a wonder fluid for sure.

 

[Crash101]

Hilter was a narcissist for sure as well as a drug user after 1941. The scarey thing is that if the nazi party was not so narcissistic the outcome of the war would be different. If Hitler had not gone to the aid of Italy, they would have succeeded capturing Moscow before the winter arrived. The second world war would have been massively different. Hilter lost the war as he thought he had visions better than his own Generals so he discounted the advice of people that new better and he made some very poor decisions. If he had released the panzer divisions on D_Day we would have been pushed back into the sea. Hitler lost the war, we didnt win it. If he had mass produced cheap tanks and upgraded the U-boat with a snorkel that would have been a game changer. We were lucky that Hitler was so mentally unstable towards the end. His decisions did not get bettter

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The Doc Man - water is odd because its not 120o. The lone pairs push the hydrogen atoms around a bit. I think it is something like 105 sh from memory. If it didnt do this water would not behave like it does. Fluke, chance, its a wonder fluid for sure.

Water molecules are always controlled and shaped by electrostatic attraction and repulsion. Whether they are at 105 or 120 the same rules apply. Just like ethylene has 120 degree angles for its two pairs of hydrogen triplets. Nothing at all magic in it.

 

[Isaac]

How do you know which god is the right god? It could be Hindu or any other of the 100 gods people worship. There's little or no evidence Christianity is the right choice.
Col

I didn't say my God was the right god. I just said there can only be one absolute truth, not multiple conflicting ones. I'm just pointing out the foolishness of people who say well. Your god is fine and my God is fine and we should all just have our own gods. Obviously, if there really is a god, we're not the ones inventing him, he's the one inventing us.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Obviously, if there really is a god, we're not the ones inventing him, he's the one inventing us.

Granted. But it is EQUALLY easy to imagine that in the face of the unknown among primitive people, inventing a God would be easier than being willing to wait to invent the science needed to explain the unknown. Did God create us in HIS own image, or did we invent God in our own image? This is a case of relativity, of frame of reference. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first? The deity inventing Man, or Man inventing a deity?

 

[Crash101]

Ok- so ethylene molecules are standard and everything is equal. Water isnt as of this 105 degrees. the causality of this angle is significant. This provides the mechanism of hydrogen bonding that makes it different to ethylene. this makes it highly polar and its liquid is heavier than its solid. It is only one of two liquids that possess this property. It also is a cause of why water is a an amazing solvent. It is also the reason why we are able to have this conversation as it provides the mechanism of celll to cell communication across proton pumps and bits and pieces like that. Its wierd and wonderful properties make it do the things that it does and this is all atttributable to this 105o going to down to the quantum level as well.

Its a wonder liquid that is for sure. You would not exist with out it. Is this a coincidence? from my perspective its a pretty simple element, taking the oxide of hydrogen, but it ends up doing so much that prehaps we take for granted. Is this just evolution at a greater level? Up to the individual thought. There is no such thing as coincidence and luck.

Ethylene is boring compared to it. You yourself are made up of 70 plus percent water. Ethylene has its uses and I have great hope for this in the manufacture of surfaces that are conducting which we can incorporate into day to day objects involving friction. Ethylene forms the basis of material construction for lots of new materials so it has its role in the future for us.

Crash101.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

My point was that the same forces that give water its angles give ethylene ITS angles. You are looking for the "special" in the midst of the ordinary.

 

[Crash101]

From a physics perspective, force is force and you would be correct. However, if when you put hydrogen dioxide together all the properties that it then demonstrates due to the effect of that lone pair to make it the perfect media and substance that does all of the things it does is remarkable. If you get down to the quantum level and look at the energy for association, there are so many ways it just keeps coming up with the goods, its a remarkable fluid. From your perspective, its just fluke. I never have believed in luck or coincidences. Water in itself is pretty much perfect in all the things that it does and that is all due to a lone pair. Your case is that we have evolved to use it as it is the way it is, darwinism, which in itself is a good thought. Coincidence of millions of years of evolution? Maybe.

I better get programming. Can worry about this stuff later!!! Happy Christmas Eve to all reading this! Or Happy Holidays!

 

[Jon]

I never have believed in luck or coincidences.

Do you believe in cause and effect? I do! But, what I can't wrap my head around is the creation of the Universe, the fact that something actually permanently existed. The Universe came out of something, even if it was a vacuum filled with some kind of random quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations are not nothing, they are something.

When did time, or anything first exist? Can something come out of nothing, and I don't mean a vacuum, which is only the illusion of nothing. Is the only feasible explanation that God exists? Because if cause and effect is a thing, what caused anything in the first instance? It must be God, mustn't it? If you argue, "Who created God then?", I would reply, "Who created anything in the first place?" If you say, "It was always there", I reply, "God was always there." If you say, "Show me the proof then", I will say, "Show me the proof something was always there." If you say, "The existence of the Universe is proof", I will say, "That is proof of God."

Regarding water and its miracle properties, consider that a) it can drown people, and b) there are plenty on non-remarkable things in the world, like the weather forecast if you live San Fran. If you say a Creator exists because of something remarkable, does a Creator not exist if there is something unremarkable?

 

[Jon]

Really, Jon? Are you sure that they aren't playing at dice - just to spite Einstein?

The dice are rigged, following cause and effect from the birth of the Universe. That is why we are all fated. Whilst quantum physics suggests randomness, it may be that it only gives the appearance of randomness. We just don't have the tech to be sure yet. Perhaps the tilt of the numbers are so slight, we don't have the computational power to check to be sure.

Or, cause and effect can still factor in randomness. Just because we don't know which way the electron will spin, doesn't mean to say it is not part of a cause and effect. It just means the outcome is nondeterministic. Having a fatalistic perspective does not mean you can predict the outcome. It just means it is preordained, and that includes uncertainty. The preordained element is that you will follow all the laws of physics.

As a side note, the cause that determines the electron spin is your observation. The fact you don't know until the electron is observed means causation is required to "set the spin" (my own term). If you didn't observe (set the cause), would the electron be spinning in any particular direction at all? Does Schrödinger's Cat come into this argument somewhere?

My thoughts above are all quite speculative. I'm just throwing it out there to confuse us all.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@Crash101

Your case is that we have evolved to use it as it is the way it is, darwinism, which in itself is a good thought.

Not strict Darwinism, but perhaps as modified by other scientific findings.

People ALWAYS get evolution wrong when they try to throw God into the equations.

God didn't create a perfect world for us. We evolved to fit in as closely as possible with the world that existed. It is the ultimate chicken-vs.-egg question.

 

[jpl458]

I just finished reading Dawkins "The God Delusion", in which he talked about the correlation between level of education and atheism. i.e., more scientific/technical/educated populations have more atheists (that explains why there are so few atheists in U.S., just look at the educational system).
So lets have a poll. I know there are lots of educated people on this board. Are you an atheist? I'll start. I have always been an atheist (luckily born to non-religous parents), and have always found it incomprehensible that other people can bring themselves to believe there is some supernatural being in the sky responsible for our existence, despite an overwhelming lack of evidence to support that belief.

I said this before, I don't belive in ghosts, regular or holy.

 

[jpl458]

The dice are rigged, following cause and effect from the birth of the Universe. That is why we are all fated. Whilst quantum physics suggests randomness, it may be that it only gives the appearance of randomness. We just don't have the tech to be sure yet. Perhaps the tilt of the numbers are so slight, we don't have the computational power to check to be sure.

Or, cause and effect can still factor in randomness. Just because we don't know which way the electron will spin, doesn't mean to say it is not part of a cause and effect. It just means the outcome is nondeterministic. Having a fatalistic perspective does not mean you can predict the outcome. It just means it is preordained, and that includes uncertainty. The preordained element is that you will follow all the laws of physics.

As a side note, the cause that determines the electron spin is your observation. The fact you don't know until the electron is observed means causation is required to "set the spin" (my own term). If you didn't observe (set the cause), would the electron be spinning in any particular direction at all? Does Schrödinger's Cat come into this argument somewhere?

My thoughts above are all quite speculative. I'm just throwing it out there to confuse us all.

Are you saying predestination? Everything is pre-determined? No free will?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@jpl458 - if I may step into that question, Jon and I have debated the issue a few times, as have others.

My take is two-fold.

FIRST, since we do not know the precise workings of the human mind, even though we may be able to guess at someone's most likely actions, the fact that we cannot do so with real accuracy suggests that we still have available to us a range of behavioral variations that might as well be free will, since we cannot predict a person's actions.

SECOND, because things occur at the molecular level, and memory has to change the brain in a permanent way (otherwise we would forget something as soon as we learned it), we have to consider that chaos theory comes into play. Including sensitive dependence on initial conditions. At longer term, sensitive dependence on prior conditions. We would have to know EVERY INFLUENCING EVENT in a person's life to predict actions. We have enough trouble remembering our own personal history in precise detail. Therefore I believe that what we have is technically indistinguishable from free will.

There is a fine line between behavioral psychology and fortune telling. Somewhere in the gap lies free will.