/atheism/ - Atheism

You're assuming the universe is a closed system. Also, expecting the universe to make sense can be one of the biggest mistakes man can ever make. You should assume a bit of humbleness and expect that there's answers that we don't and may not ever know as humans. To expect everything to make sense is lunacy. Until we have a brain approaching the size of the universe, we won't be able to understand all the intricacies of it like expecting your 4ghz CPU with x-billion transistors to emulate itself using the same.

But I think that's far and away from saying because we don't understand its creation doesn't mean it was made by gods. And to defend my plural use, if man was made in the image of god as some religions claim, then in fairness to polytheists, it makes as much sense to assume male/female god duality, a yin-yang, so to speak.

Enjoy life, young anon and try not to worry about what you can't answer. Confusion leads to worry, worry leads to little if any good.

>However, 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe is always decreasing over time.

Should have stopped reading right there.

>which means the entropy of the universe should have dropped to a point where no useful energy is available.

Son of a bitch.

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

>>8188

>Doesn't understand what entropy is

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Secondlaw.html

Actually I made a mistake: Should have been "always increasing" over time.

>>8183

>You're assuming the universe is a closed system. Also, expecting the universe to make sense can be one of the biggest mistakes man can ever make. You should assume a bit of humbleness and expect that there's answers that we don't and may not ever know as humans.

Humans can replicate themselves. There exist machines that can replicate themselves.

I can think of a few alternate ideas but they all involve relative physics and their bizarre concept of time and space.

>>8180

We know for a fact the universe has a beginning. We even know how long the universe has existed, about 14 billion years.

>>8192

Yes, we can replicate ourselves. I'm not sure why you're replying to me. Is it the emulation I mentioned? Of course I think it's possible to emulate ourselves roughly but to truly emulate everything, you need as many sub-particles as that system has or else it's not true or 100% emulation.

Replication, to be practical and true, isn't emulation. There's certain quantum effects that we can't replicate when even copying things like ICs. Every IC has some quantum differences that causes it to behave slightly differently under certain conditions than another IC even if the same model. Not to mention there's cosmic radiation effects that can affect things like IC transistors, DNA, etc.

Replicating or cloning people at the human level, for all intents and purposes, may seem just that but quantum nuances come into play and the more entropy takes hold, the more those nuances are accentuated. So take confidence in knowing, unless we can control entropy, there will never be another you ever again in this universe no matter how cloned we think someone is.

>>8191

Entropy regards the balance of energy between systems. The universe isn't a closed system.

Entropy is always increasing over time, but time isn't linear. And entropy doesn't affect the existence of energy, just the movement of energy.

Entropy isn't some destructive force, basically, entropy is a balancing factor.

>>8194

>We know for a fact the universe has a beginning.

Nope.

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

>>8192

And in doing so,

x creates x^2

not

x creates x

or

x creates y

A machine can replicate itself, but the replicated machine isn't going to be the same machine. This is primary school level shit.

>>8180

This is the type of a question you shouldn't try to answer with certainty. It's another unknowable question, like "Is there a deity, yes or no?" Or, "Is there an invisible soul that transcends bodily death?"

Long ago physics could have been very different before the Big Bang, and we have no known way of observing the records of that universe. Any information from before that time must be lost by now. It's as futile as an old man that tries to remember his life inside his mother's womb.

It is dangerous to cling to your best reasoning when there can be very little evidence to support your assumptions. That's what creates the cycle of old religions giving way to the new religions. Gullibility that comes from hubris is a timeless human flaw, and it's an obstacle to be aware of.

>>8238

I never said that it existed for an eternity.

First sentence in your source.

>The Universe is all of time and space.

>All of time

Your picture is misleading as time began as the singularity expanded, which was called the big bang. (A bit of a misnomer as there was no "bang" unless you call rapid expansion a bang. Whoever invented this term was an idiot.)

That singularity though, has existed since before the big bang else there would be nothing to expand you retard.

Educate yourself beyond what they teach you in high school.

>>8238

>the big bang describes the beginning of the universe

nope

>>8261

I agree it is highly unlikely. However, the question was intended to be unanswerable though, like a koan. And you'll never have proof souls don't exist.

>>8262

You'll never have proof my harem of supermodel astrophysicists doesn't exist. If we draw the line for what we can say doesn't exist at what we can definitively prove doesn't exist, there's almost nothing we can say doesn't exist.

>>8257

>You said the universe didn't have begining

That doesn't mean that it existed for an eternity. You keep assuming that time is linear.

>which implies it has always existed or it doesn't exist.

It only implies that if you use a flawed definition of time as you keep doing.

>Same source you posted.

It actually wasn't.

>I'm pretty sure Sir Fred Hoyle is way smarter than you kid

Be that as it may, my point still stands. Besides, what does that have to do with anything?

>You don't say

I did say.

>Why don't you read a book nigger, because you sure are stupid. You start by looking up the definition of "universe".

You are missing one important point. Time wasn't a thing before the "big bang".

I find it funny that you use the term pseudointellectual (which is actually "pseudo" and not "psuedo") to define me, when you don't have the correct definitions of the terms that you're using.

Why are you so butthurt?

>>8263

This.

>>8267

>"I've run out of arguments so I am just going to pussy out like a bitch"

>>8457

You know, what you have said actually makes some sense. It really does. Too bad that by your own logic, you still didn't win.

>>8473

1. That's just general rule of thumb for debating on this board. You can't just pop your fingers in your ears, be unreasonable, insult the other person until they leave and then declare yourself the victor. If that was the case, the statuefag would be our grand champion of debate.

2. Check the IDs.

3. You're an obvious troll.

>>8489

I was talking about you, not statuefag.

>>8261

not being able to answer on the affirmative nor negative doesn't mean you are compelled to believe it is true.