You respond to a theist who will be coming on the show soon...

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
You respond to a theist who will be coming on the show soon...

We accepted his request. We also alerted him that we're posting this thread, and will alert him to it....

YOU RESPOND:

Quote:

FROM: Dave M

Hello All

Your website and your efforts are very interesting. I've even viewed some
of the video clips from blasphemychallnege.com, and I have some questions
for you. First off, many folks who adhere to these views repeat the
mantra that they've come to their conclusions via logic and reason. However, I've not been able to find on your site, or any other similar
site for that matter, any explanation of the origin of the universe. You
see, the big bang theory is predominant among many atheists. A stable
singularity the size of a baseball that contained all the matter and
energy in the known universe that suddely exploded into what we see today.
Physics proved that objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted
upon by an outside force, and objects at rest will remian at rest unless
acted upon by an outside force. Can you answer the question of What force
acted on the singularity that caused the Big Bang? This would be most
helpful in your debates.

Also, many who adhere to your philosophy would also adhere to the fact
that we are all here by chance. Science has proven that all of the
information contained in our own DNA would fill the Grand Canyon forty
times over with books of information. Thats incredible considering that
it happened by chance. It would be like dropping the pieces of a scrabble
board on the floor and getting the first sentence of War and Peace, very
unlikey.

In conclusion I would like to say that yes indeed I am a Christian, but I
used to study Evolution, and I will admit that I used to share the same
views as you. I also saw on your website that you have a radio show. I
would very much like to challennge anyone at your organization to an
on-air debate so that I can prove that your ideas are flawed.

Let me know,

Dave

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Dave M wrote:Your website

Dave M wrote:
Your website and your efforts are very interesting. I've even viewed some of the video clips from blasphemychallnege.com, and I have some questions for you. First off, many folks who adhere to these views repeat the mantra that they've come to their conclusions via logic and reason. However, I've not been able to find on your site, or any other similar
site for that matter, any explanation of the origin of the universe. You see, the big bang theory is predominant among many atheists. A stable singularity the size of a baseball that contained all the matter and energy in the known universe that suddely exploded into what we see today. Physics proved that objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, and objects at rest will remian at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Can you answer the question of What force acted on the singularity that caused the Big Bang? This would be most helpful in your debates.

The big bang is predominant among atheists because it is predominant around scientists. If most people theist or not seem to agree to the theory I would think if you separate the groups the theory that most out of either group would be the same as both, if they use science to get to their opinion anyway. I don't have a degree or study this heavily, but below is a rebuttal to your argument.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html

Quote:
Also, many who adhere to your philosophy would also adhere to the fact that we are all here by chance. Science has proven that all of the information contained in our own DNA would fill the Grand Canyon forty times over with books of information. Thats incredible considering that it happened by chance. It would be like dropping the pieces of a scrabble board on the floor and getting the first sentence of War and Peace, very unlikey.

Well to argue our existence is unlikely is like saying it is unlikely that dice will land on a certain side and in this case we wouldn't be able to know if we lost the odds. I would also like to point out we haven't been able to find other life out their as of yet, if the odds are so slim it would make sense that we would have such a hard time finding someone else. Another point would be that the sentence, us, did not just drop into existence. It would be more like we got some symbols and then they evolved into something "better."

Quote:
In conclusion I would like to say that yes indeed I am a Christian, but I used to study Evolution, and I will admit that I used to share the same views as you. I also saw on your website that you have a radio show. I would very much like to challennge anyone at your organization to an on-air debate so that I can prove that your ideas are flawed.

Let me know,

Dave


It seems you that is what you got. I'll look forward to seeing how it turns out.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
same old error of equating

same old error of equating evolution with randomness/chance........ which indicates a basic ignorance of even the very basics of evolution.

Why is this person going to be on the show?

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:Why is this

todangst wrote:
Why is this person going to be on the show?

To be eaten alive? Metaphorically speaking.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Dave wrote:However, I've not

Dave wrote:
However, I've not been able to find on your site, or any other similar
site for that matter, any explanation of the origin of the universe.

We're not a site about cosmology; we're a site about how rational thinking leads on to the conclusion of atheism ( a lack of belief in God(s)). Based on your above statements, you believe in a God of the gaps: i.e. - if science doesn't/can't explain something, "God did it".

Dave wrote:
Also, many who adhere to your philosophy would also adhere to the fact that we are all here by chance.

Strawman fallacy. Evolution is not a product of chance, it's a product of natural selection.

Dave wrote:
I will admit that I used to share the same views as you.

Do you mean you used to acecpt the scientific method as the best method to produce knowledge or that you used to be an Atheist?

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:todangst

Zhwazi wrote:
todangst wrote:
Why is this person going to be on the show?

To be eaten alive? Metaphorically speaking.

Precisely. You might as well have someone come on and try to argue that heavier than air flight is impossible... people who debate against evolution tend to be ignorant of the science, and the 'randomness can't produce X" argument is a sign of a fundamental ignorance of what evolution/natural selection....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello, this is the RRS

Hello, this is the RRS answering machine, if you are hearing this message, your call has...

Forget it, there is no point in an answering machine talking to a parrot. You just keep going repeating the same idiotic argument as everybody else does.

Or... or actually read an actual book on evolution, that was actually made by a actual sceintist, and learn for yourself instead of reading from a list of lies and making yourself look like in idiot!

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Why is this

todangst wrote:

Why is this person going to be on the show?

1. He asked.
2. Like most who ask he didn't seem purposefully dishonest.
3. He seemed pleasant enough to fulfill his request, and he deserves a rational response.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Expanding on my last

Expanding on my last post....

todangst wrote:
people who debate against evolution tend to be ignorant of the science, and the 'randomness can't produce X" argument is a sign of a fundamental ignorance of what evolution/natural selection....

Having him on the show will give us a chance to explain evolution, while receiving responses from someone who doesn't understand it. It'll be more entertaining then us lecturing for an hour. His questions and rebuttals will be similar to that of any Christian who doesn't understand evolution, and often times those are questions and rebuttals I cant even begin to conceive. His presence on the show may also entice some theist listeners to tune in to hear what we'd say to such arguments.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Let's Clarify A Few Things, Shall We!

Wow,

I find that the claws are already out and I haven't even been officially booked on the show! First of all you guys talk a good game, but when it comes down to proof - It is you who have the burden!

Let's first tackle the scientists who generate the theories, or the basket, that you so faithfully place all of your egss into. Its worth mentioning that many of your hall of famers Newton, Einstein, Darwin, etc. were believers.

Second, I never argued against or negated scientific thought at all. I believe that science and truth go hand in hand.

Third, I never argued or denied the big bang. Its funny, I keep hearing alot about logic and reason, logic and reason, but its funny that logic and reason seem to disappear at the singularity. I'll ask again.

What caused the seemingly stable singularity to expand? There's my $500 question.

As per my brief comments on evolution, I do believe that I can elaborate on the subject more so than you think. Try me!

Dave

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
todangst, Not equating

todangst,

Not equating evolution with randomness.

Please elaborate on what the very basics of evolution are, or as you see them?

I would like to be on the show to explain to intellectuals like yourself that you're really not as smart as you think you are.

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Ophios, So far you have

Ophios,

So far you have insulted me, and yet you don't know me.

Like I said earlier, I'm no expert on evolution. However, it was my major subject of study in college and I have read a good number of books on the topic.

Which argument did I repeat, so that I can be careful not to repeat it in the future.

Dave

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Hello Randalllord, Tell me

Hello Randalllord,

Tell me from a rational perspective what force acted on the singularity which ultimately developed into the Big Bang?

In what context did the singularity exist? If space and time were contained in the singularity, then where and when was the singularity?

Looking forward to your responses.

Dave

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Wow, I find that the

Quote:
Wow,

I find that the claws are already out and I haven't even been officially booked on the show! First of all you guys talk a good game, but when it comes down to proof - It is you who have the burden!

Let's first tackle the scientists who generate the theories, or the basket, that you so faithfully place all of your egss into. Its worth mentioning that many of your hall of famers Newton, Einstein, Darwin, etc. were believers.

:ROTF: I couldn't even get past this without laughing. I'll try to read the rest when I can handle it.


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Sapient, My final thoughts

Sapient,

My final thoughts before I retire for the night.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the burden of proof is on you! Prove to me there is no God! Evolution does not prove there is no God. Big Bang does not prove there is no God. Show me the objective hard evidence that God deosn't exist, other than its "BS", which I hear alot from your folks.

Here's the truth, not as I see it, or have been told, or have been indoctrinated in, but as I experieiced it myself: Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.

I do agree with you, religion can be, and is a terrible thing. It has adversely affected many millions of lives, and on the surface it does fit the description of controlling, brain washing and intoloerant, but we're not talking about religion. We're talking about truth. Also, just so we don't fight his battle down the road I think we can both agree that Secular Humanism (Communism, Fascism, and other Atheist lead war machines) is responsible for an equal amount of destruction throughout history.

So let's put the insults, profanity, and jibber jabber away, and lets get to the real issue - which is the truth.

Dave

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello MarthaSplatterhead,

Elaborate on why this was so amusing. Or, are you still checking to see if what I wrote was actually true.

Take your time,

Dave

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
OK, I'm better now.

OK, I'm better now.

Quote:
I said it before and I'll say it again, the burden of proof is on you! Prove to me there is no God!

Right after you prove there are no leprechauns.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
For one, the burden of proof

For one, the burden of proof is on the one who claims something.

For another thing, none of the aforementioned were theists. Do a little research.


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Martha, I'm waiting. Dave

Martha,

I'm waiting.

Dave


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I don't jump to your

I don't jump to your demands.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Are you that fucking

Are you that fucking stupid??!!!?? Anyone who is not retarded would realise that the burden of proof is on the one who claims something DOES exist. If I claimed I invented a time machine would you just believe it until someone proved otherwise? Not unless you're a moron. The burden of proof is always, always, always on the person who claims something exists. That's just the way logic works.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Martha: Newton was an

Martha:

Newton was an outspoken believer in God and took much delight in discovering how God held the Universe together.

In response to a question about the evolution of the human eye via natural selection, Charles Darwin was quoted as saying there is ....no possible way natural selection could have created someting as complex as the eye.

Einstein was a Jew.

Dave

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The RRS is going to tear you

The RRS is going to tear you a new asshole if you use such idiotic shit that has been refuted for centuries. Read what Einstein said about religion. Oh boy, this is going to be funny.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Hey Matt Shizzle, I saw your

Hey Matt Shizzle,

I saw your Blasphemy Video. You looked a little shaky there bud, but I said a prayer for you anyway. By the way, the more profanity you use, the stupider I think you are.

I probably should have prefaced this, but I thought my position was understood. For about 99.98% of the human beings that ever lived, evidence of God's Design and Creation are everywhere you look. I forgot that you guys are so intellectually superior than the rest of us.

And the way I see it YOU ARE CLAIMING that this universe exists without God. Prove it!

Dave

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You stupid fucking idiot!

You stupid fucking idiot! The burden of proof is on the person claiming something exists! In other words the default position is there is no god. It is up to you to prove otherwise. That is just the way logic works. I don't expect you to understand or attempt to prove this. Christians are sp stupid. Just waiting for the next RRS show. Brian, Rook, Yellow and Left of Larry are going to make such an ass out of you......

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And the way I see it

Quote:
And the way I see it YOU ARE CLAIMING that this universe exists without God. Prove it!

And I said, leprechauns exist. The universe cannot possibly exist without them. Prove it!


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
The proof is what we see,

The proof is what we see, not being created by what is visible so that we have no excuse. That's the proof. The world did not come from nothing. But you don't accept that, you believe in magic which is a greater leap of faith than to believe in God. So we have to go to the next logical step in our debate which is: If you don't believe that God created the universe, then explain how it was created.

Explain how it was created without intelligent design.

Very Simple, and without magic.

Dave

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Well fellow RR participants,

Well fellow RR participants, our guest has a valid point.

If you are making a postiive claim, that X (god) does not exist, you do shift the burden on yourself to demonstrate this. At the least you share a burden and need to demonstrate that the evidence is weighed in the favor of your position. If you rest your argument on skepticism, then there is no burden on you.

So if you position is strong atheism, you do have a burden in this discussion.

Likewise, our theist has made at least one positive claim here and he has a burden as well. Among his burdens is to defend his assertion that during the radio show he can demonstrate that the ideas expressed on this website "are flawed".

This should be interesting. So far, all our guest has been able to muster up is an argument from ignorance, expressed by him as "chance is unlikely, therefore the christian god".

welcome to the website, and good luck on the radio show.


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock wrote:The proof is

dmiclock wrote:
The proof is what we see, not being created by what is visible so that we have no excuse.

This is an unintelligible sentence. It is virtually meaningless.

dmiclock wrote:

That's the proof.

No it isnt'. You haven't even begun to meet your burden of proving that god exists. Tell us what he is made of, where is he, and how does he interact with the physical universe. This would be good for starters.

dmiclock wrote:

The world did not come from nothing.

Can you demonstrate where someone said it did, or is this merely a diversionary strawman?

dmiclock wrote:

you believe in magic which is a greater leap of faith than to believe in God.

Who, other than you, is positing a magical being? You are projecting your own weak position.

dmiclock wrote:

So we have to go to the next logical step in our debate which is: If you don't believe that God created the universe, then explain how it was created.

This is a classic burden shift. "accept my position or prove it false". As someone else suggested to you, right after you prove all other gods false. This is an impossible, unreasonble burden. You cannot prove a concept as loose as "god" as unreal, anymore than you can prove any other equally unlikely concept false. We can only demonstrate certain concepts of god are impossible, but then you can slightly change your definition ad nausem.

dmiclock wrote:

Explain how it was created without intelligent design.

Explain *how* it was intelligently designed, and who designed the necessary designer.

Thanks in advance.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
again? 5 posts and suddenly

again?

5 posts and suddenly everything on the site pales in comparison to your idea that this is something new?

Here, I'll give you something new to the site:
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html

Billions of dollars are being poured into discovering the truth. Men and women, far more intelligent than us, are endeavoring to show us the origin of a universe such as ours.

Sapient posted a video in chat last week. I found one on youtube. Here:

How do we know with complete certainty that a god could not exist?

Several of the people on this site do not make such a claim. The official position of the Rational Response Squad (unless I've changed them. lol.) is that there is a slight possibility that there could be a god, there just is no evidence for it/he/she. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god(s). Believing in a god without evidence using blind faith has been judged as irrational and ,in my opinion, rightly so. By declaring atheism one does not state matter-of-factly that "There is no god." It is only a statement that there is no evidence to prompt the claim that there is one.

If you're the one claiming that you have a dollar bill in your pocket and I say that I don't believe you then is it my responsibility to reach into your pocket and search for the dollar bill?

With the seemingly infinite amount of matter and energy in the universe most often obeying the physical laws that we are aware of, we can safely make the singularity argument. The big bang.
However, perhaps the singularity is not the beginning but rather a symptom of a quantum beginning. The particle accelerator is being built specifically to prove that point. The very large coming from the very small over time. Particles smaller than atoms smashing together at very high speeds converting energy into matter and the (theoretical) anti-matter. These collisions of subatomic particles cause dramatic effects upon the particles surrounding them. The energy exerted theoretically causes a shift between matter-energy-matter and bringing real physical forces into play such as gravity which in turn causes more particles to accelerate and eventually collide causing more shifts in the particles and energy itself.

Now, is it reasonable to believe that a god simply accelerated these particles? No, because anything capable of doing so beforehand would need to know what to do and how to do it. Otherwise, it is just as incidental as two or more subatomic particles colliding in space. No 'design' required.

I know the next question because I've read it before. Where did the subatomic particles come from in the first place then? Would god have created them? No. If anything was to ever be created by something else of a higher order then we break into infinite regression. (Creator's creator that was created, etc.) The going theory is the membrane or M-theory where cosmic bands of energy simply vibrated too close to each other causing particle collisions then matter then gravity and through billions of years of smashing together and finally blowing up into the universe and finally us. I understand that still doesn't explain the origin of the particles but taking it one step backwards at a time is the best science can do at this point.

I find this answer to be much more fulfilling to my curiosity rather than simply blaming/excusing/thanking a god that has absolutely no rational explanation or basis in theory.

If you still feel the need to have a god to explain the beginning without ever looking beyond that then fine. Just don't preach it as a fact when the only evidence there is entails a plea from ignorance of the known and unknown.

Oh, and giving any one of these as an answer to a question posed by the rrs will be the fastest way to get me to turn the show off and pick up a crossword puzzle or magazine.

He's/She's everywhere.
He's/She's everything.
He's/She's always been, never created, just existing.
He's/She's all-powerful.
He's/She's all-knowing.
You just don't know god like I do.
We have to have something to draw upon.
There are things that we'll never be able to explain.

or just about any other ridiculous platitude.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock wrote:Which

dmiclock wrote:
Which argument did I repeat, so that I can be careful not to repeat it in the future.

Maybe I miss read you but.

Quote:
Thats incredible considering that
it happened by chance.

It's that same ol', "OMT, it's highly unlikely therefore god."

Becuase, you know, when you roll a die. it's always god pushing it, it's not physics or anything making it land on a number.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock wrote:Sapient, My

dmiclock wrote:
Sapient,

My final thoughts before I retire for the night.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the burden of proof is on you! Prove to me there is no God!

Sure right after you prove to me that you don't exist and that Pink unicorns don't exist. If you're wondering why I'd want you to prove something you never stated, now you know how I feel.

Quote:
Evolution does not prove there is no God.

Agreed.

Quote:
Big Bang does not prove there is no God.

Agreed.

Quote:
Show me the objective hard evidence that God deosn't exist, other than its "BS", which I hear alot from your folks.

Show me where I said no god exists, and I leave no room open for it's existence.

Quote:
Here's the truth, not as I see it, or have been told, or have been indoctrinated in, but as I experieiced it myself: Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.

And now the burden of proof is on you.

Quote:
I do agree with you, religion can be, and is a terrible thing. It has adversely affected many millions of lives, and on the surface it does fit the description of controlling, brain washing and intoloerant, but we're not talking about religion. We're talking about truth.

Ok, I'll agree.

Quote:
Also, just so we don't fight his battle down the road I think we can both agree that Secular Humanism (Communism, Fascism, and other Atheist lead war machines) is responsible for an equal amount of destruction throughout history.

Sorry, can't agree there.

Quote:
So let's put the insults, profanity, and jibber jabber away, and lets get to the real issue - which is the truth.

Right and you believe the truth is a man named Christ died for your sins. Since you claim that science and truth go hand in hand, and we can presume you think Christianity is truth, the burden now rests on you to prove scientifically that God exists. Please then also prove the existence of Christ scientifically, and prove the reasons why he needed to come down to the Earth to sacrifice himself to himself so that others could escape the wrath of himself.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:dmiclock

Sapient wrote:
dmiclock wrote:
Sapient,

My final thoughts before I retire for the night.

I said it before and I'll say it again, the burden of proof is on you! Prove to me there is no God!

Sure right after you prove to me that you don't exist and that Pink unicorns don't exist. If you're wondering why I'd want you to prove something you never stated, now you know how I feel.

should I pull out my big list o' gods?

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Lets Get ReGrounded!

Sapient,

Lets forget about religion and Christianity for a moment and get back to God's existence. I'm simply saying that a painting is absolute proof that there was a painter, a building is absolute proof that there was a builder, and creation itself is absolute proof that there was a creator.

We can argue all day and night about science, religion, philosophy, etc. but at some point through your reason and logic you guys have to believe that all of this (the univerese) came from nothing. So what you will eventually call magic, I call God.

Carl Sagen had no response to this when he debated the well known contemporary theology professor RC Sproul.

So lets focus on that. I'm saying that the PROOF is the creation itself. School me otherwise. Where did time, matter, space and all that we see come from.

Poof

Dave

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock wrote:Sapient, Lets

dmiclock wrote:
Sapient,

Lets forget about religion and Christianity for a moment and get back to God's existence. I'm simply saying that a painting is absolute proof that there was a painter, a building is absolute proof that there was a builder, and creation itself is absolute proof that there was a creator.

We can argue all day and night about science, religion, philosophy, etc. but at some point through your reason and logic you guys have to believe that all of this (the univerese) came from nothing. So what you will eventually call magic, I call God.

Carl Sagen had no response to this when he debated the well known contemporary theology professor RC Sproul.

So lets focus on that. I'm saying that the PROOF is the creation itself. School me otherwise. Where did time, matter, space and all that we see come from.

Poof

Dave

The Big Bang theory does not describe the origin of the universe. It describes events immediately following the origin of the universe.

It may not make sense to talk about cause and effect in this period, as time itself probably could not cross the event horizon of the original singularity. Your evocation of the First Law is invalid, as physics as we know it breaks down into quantum events in the earliest moments of the Big Bang model. In other words, nothing that came before the Big Bang could have had any effect on anything that occured after the Big Bang. Time itself starts at the Big Bang.

It is also possible that the Big Bang was caused by a non-causal quantum fluctuation, which are theoretical events that are thought to occur at very small scales. These events are random, and cannot be said to follow from any force or influence - including a god.

The short answer is that the ultimate origin of the Big Bang singularity is not known. This does not mean it was created by god. It doesn't even suggest that it was created by god. It doesn't even allow that it was created by god, until theists satisfy their burden of proof to show tha god exists. The default answer for unknown questions is not "goddidit".

I'd also take issue with your assertion that anything that looks like it was created, was in fact created. First of all, how do we decide what appears to be created? Anything that we can't imagine coming to exist by other means? This places an entirely arbirary limitation on the universe - if it exceeds the human imagination, it must be created. In the Middle Ages, germ theory exceeded the human imagination so people imagined that disease came from a Creator - either Satan or the evil thoughts of the victim. Today, germ theory is within our imagination and we don't hear too many christians advocating exorcism as a viable medical procedure. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the explanation for the universe lies similarly outside our present knowledge, but well within the bounds of nature and logic?

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
I'll try not to reiterate

I'll try not to reiterate too much of what has been said.

Let's assume, just for shits n' giggles, that the theory of the big bang is completely wrong. What does this have to do with God? nothing.

That is, even if science's best theory, whatever it may be, about the origin of the universe is completely incorrect, it does not prove that God was the cause at all. The question is "what was the nature of the universe's beginning," not "was it God or the big bang?"

There is a distinction between things like paintings and watches on the one hand, and something that is the totality of all of reality on the other. We see how watches and paintings are created, so we can derive the creator-created distinction here. We don't see universes being created, so the derivation cannot be made here.

Further, the idea that God was the creator is not even an answer in the first place; it's what I call a "non-answer" (go figure, right?). If we say that everything needs a cause, therefore the universe needs a cause, then I am forced to ask what the cause of the cause is? That is, what is the cause of God? And then we can ask what the cause of taht cause was, etc, etc, etc....

If you answer that God does not need a cause, then you've violated the rule that everything that exists needs a cause. This is what is called the fallacy of begging the question or perhaps special pleading. You are using different criteria for the attributes of the natural universe and God arbitrarily; that is, you have no (or at least you have not yet stated) justification to assert that God's nature does not require a creator while the universe does; why would this be, anyway? It seems like a post hoc rationalization to support God, but is really a common logical fallacy.

More here. where I discuss the cosmological argument in more depth.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock wrote:Sapient, Lets

dmiclock wrote:
Sapient,

Lets forget about religion and Christianity for a moment and get back to God's existence. I'm simply saying that a painting is absolute proof that there was a painter, a building is absolute proof that there was a builder, and creation itself is absolute proof that there was a creator.

Fine by me, however we have proof that paintings are painted and buildings are built we can see those things happen wherever we want. We even have proof that creations need creators, however we DONT have proof that the Universe was "created." If you can show me a Universe factory to prove that all Universes are created by someone or something, then you'll have proven your claim.

Quote:
We can argue all day and night about science, religion, philosophy, etc. but at some point through your reason and logic you guys have to believe that all of this (the univerese) came from nothing. So what you will eventually call magic, I call God.

Instead of making false assertions so often, it would behoove you to ask questions more often to avoid making so many fallacious claims. I never have said all of this came from nothing, and I can't see how I ever will.

Quote:
Carl Sagen had no response to this when he debated the well known contemporary theology professor RC Sproul.

Maybe because the line of argumentation didn't even warrant a response. Please provide the transcript.

Quote:
So lets focus on that. I'm saying that the PROOF is the creation itself. School me otherwise. Where did time, matter, space and all that we see come from.

First of all the burden of poroof is still on you to prove that the Universe was created thereby needing a creator. Secondly read up on the law of conservation of matter and energy. Please read more than the story I link you to because it seems to be an important point for you. Now, the law has been proven over and over and over and over (etc) that the total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

What does this mean? It means that the matter that caused our planet has always existed and always will. In fact this scientific law in itself shows us how now god is needed in any equation to determine where we came from, but I will entertain the notion of your god if you'd like to get back to proving his existence at some point. You should stay away from making assertions about my position with no knowledge, as you're not doing a very good job at it.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:So what you will

Quote:
So what you will eventually call magic, I call God.

So this is what you think atheists believe?
"See, there's nothing up my sleeves. And so when I say the magic words, alakazam, presto a universe."


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:dmiclock

Tilberian wrote:
dmiclock wrote:
Sapient,

Lets forget about religion and Christianity for a moment and get back to God's existence. I'm simply saying that a painting is absolute proof that there was a painter, a building is absolute proof that there was a builder, and creation itself is absolute proof that there was a creator.

We can argue all day and night about science, religion, philosophy, etc. but at some point through your reason and logic you guys have to believe that all of this (the univerese) came from nothing. So what you will eventually call magic, I call God.

Carl Sagen had no response to this when he debated the well known contemporary theology professor RC Sproul.

So lets focus on that. I'm saying that the PROOF is the creation itself. School me otherwise. Where did time, matter, space and all that we see come from.

Poof

Dave

The Big Bang theory does not describe the origin of the universe. It describes events immediately following the origin of the universe.

It may not make sense to talk about cause and effect in this period, as time itself probably could not cross the event horizon of the original singularity. Your evocation of the First Law is invalid, as physics as we know it breaks down into quantum events in the earliest moments of the Big Bang model. In other words, nothing that came before the Big Bang could have had any effect on anything that occured after the Big Bang. Time itself starts at the Big Bang.

It is also possible that the Big Bang was caused by a non-causal quantum fluctuation, which are theoretical events that are thought to occur at very small scales. These events are random, and cannot be said to follow from any force or influence - including a god.

The short answer is that the ultimate origin of the Big Bang singularity is not known. This does not mean it was created by god. It doesn't even suggest that it was created by god. It doesn't even allow that it was created by god, until theists satisfy their burden of proof to show tha god exists. The default answer for unknown questions is not "goddidit".

I'd also take issue with your assertion that anything that looks like it was created, was in fact created. First of all, how do we decide what appears to be created? Anything that we can't imagine coming to exist by other means? This places an entirely arbirary limitation on the universe - if it exceeds the human imagination, it must be created. In the Middle Ages, germ theory exceeded the human imagination so people imagined that disease came from a Creator - either Satan or the evil thoughts of the victim. Today, germ theory is within our imagination and we don't hear too many christians advocating exorcism as a viable medical procedure. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the explanation for the universe lies similarly outside our present knowledge, but well within the bounds of nature and logic?

I have to admit that this is the most cohesive argument that anyone on this site has presented. Good Job.

DPM

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock wrote:todangst, Not

dmiclock wrote:
todangst,

Not equating evolution with randomness.

Ahem, yes, you are:

"Also, many who adhere to your philosophy would also adhere to the fact that we are all here by chance. Science has proven that all of the information contained in our own DNA would fill the Grand Canyon forty times over with books of information. Thats incredible considering that
it happened by chance. It would be like dropping the pieces of a scrabbleboard on the floor and getting the first sentence of War and Peace, very unlikey.

This is equating evolution with randomness.

If you aren't able to even follow your own words, what point is there in conversing with you?

Quote:

Please elaborate on what the very basics of evolution are, or as you see them?

Please head to a library and ask the person behind the desk for a book on natural selection.

Quote:

I would like to be on the show to explain to intellectuals like yourself that you're really not as smart as you think you are.

Please stop projecting your own feelings of inferiority onto me.

Here's a tip for you:

Rule number one of debate:

1. Never argue about something about which you are fundamentally ignorant.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock wrote:The proof is

dmiclock wrote:
The proof is what we see, not being created by what is visible so that we have no excuse. That's the proof. The world did not come from nothing. But you don't accept that,

Incorrect. It is the theist who believes in ex nihilo creation. You believe that things 'come from nothing" through magic.

Can you please stop projecting your own flaws onto others? It gets messy....

Now that we've left your projections aside (and what can an ignorant person do otherwise but project, seeing as he has no real information?) let's look at what cosmologists actually say:

1) Common misperception: The "big bang" theory is not a 'creation theory', but a description of what occured at planck time, and immediately aftwards:

"Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period - (from the perspective of the big bang - ed.)"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html

2) There is no reason to hold that there MUST have been a creation point.

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible scenarios, not just one:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.[6] [7]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html

One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point"

http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html

Another third scenario option can be found here:


The Myth of the Beginning of Time
String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state
By Gabriele Veneziano

This argument is for an enternal megaverse that creates universes out of vaccum point energy.

The following cosmology theories deal with the 'something from nothing' scenario, but not in a literal ex nihilo sense:

1) Edward Tryon has put forth the idea of a vacuum fluctation, which is NOT a violation of physical law, as the original source for matter/energy. Alan Guth's Inflationary Model explains the rapid expansion of this energy.

Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth.

Tryon makes the point that the total sum of positive and negative energy in the universe may well be ZERO, indicating again, that no physical laws are violated by the big bang event.

As Tryon writes: "Im my model, I assume that our present universe did appear out of nowhere 10 to the 10th power years ago. Contrary to the popular belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics.

Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth.

2)
'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory

"The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time."

This collision would provide the original energy.

So even the 'something from nothing' scenarios don't have a universe coming from a 'literal nothing' i.e. ex nihilo

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock wrote: I have to

dmiclock wrote:

I have to admit that this is the most cohesive argument that anyone on this site has presented. Good Job.

DPM

Tilberian provided you with basic information that anyone who reads a chapter on cosmology would find... The fact that you're impressed with what he's posted there is a testament to how little you know about this subject.

Here's some advice for the rest of us:

It's sometimes a disadvantage to reason with People of shallow Understandings; for be their Intention ever so honest, they shall wrangle about a thousand things solidly prov'd, for want of comprehending the Force of an Argument.

- P Bayle

Basically, these 'debates' are nothing more than free tutoring for the uninformed.....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock wrote:We can argue

dmiclock wrote:

We can argue all day and night about science, religion, philosophy, etc. but at some point through your reason and logic you guys have to believe that all of this (the univerese) came from nothing. So what you will eventually call magic, I call God.

Again, theists are the ones who believe in ex nihlio creation. "Something from nothing" Cosmologists are not arguing for this at all. For example, Hawkings argues that the universe is boundless but finite both spatially and temporally. I have a great deal of posts on this subject from infidelguy that I will have to pull up and store on this site...

In the meantime, I have to pull out Yellow's post again:

More basic, BASIC information for our theist 'debaters'

But first...

Quote:

Carl Sagen had no response to this when he debated the well known contemporary theology professor RC Sproul.

1) This is bullshit. You really, seriously don't know what you're talking about, which makes your evalutations of the topic nearly worthless

2) SagAn Can you at least spell the one of the most popular scientists of the 20th century's name right?

Yellow writes:

There is still no official version of the essay, and most of them are still in a "response" sort of format. Feel free to take and adapt as needed, but I would apprieciate credit where due if you share it with others, mainly, because I want to know what they think of it. Glad you found it helpful Laughing out loud

First let me start off by saying that I'm certainly no cosmologist, but I think you'll find that it certainly doesn't take a Stephen Hawking to refute the intellectually devoid horror that is fishdontwalk.com.

Let's dive right in on the creationist's assault on the Big Bang:

Quote:
http://fishdontwalk.com/aviewer.asp?i=7

fishdon'twalk wrote:
The Big Bang

The Big Bang! What is the Big Bang?

Apparently it is one of the most misunderstood and straw-manned scientific theories out there, as we shall soon see.

Quote:

The "Big Bang" is the popular secular explanation for the origin of the Universe. It is interesting to note that the term "Big Bang" is not popular with its proponents. The term "Big Bang" was assigned by Sir Fred Hoyle, who gave it mockingly. A few years ago a nationwide contest was held to solicit suggestions for coming up with a better name for the Big Bang (I entered but did not win). Eventually, the powers that be decided they would stick with the Big Bang label.

Right off the bat, things have gone horribly wrong. The Big Bang theory is not a secular explanation at all, it is a scientific one – and there most assuredly is a difference. The theory itself originated back in 1927 when a Catholic monk named Georges Lemaître independently derived a set of equations (now known as the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations) from Einstein's theory of general relativity. These equations coupled with observations of the recession of spiral nebulae led Lemaître to theorize that the Universe began as a point or "primevial atom".

So like it or not, the first to propose such a thing was a theist, a Catholic monk no less. Obviously Lemaître didn't think his proposal conflicted with his belief in God, unlike certain fundamentalists who insist upon placing scriptural limits on their God's creation.

In the end, unless one wants to say that physics, mathematics and telescopes are strictly and solely for the secularists or atheists; one ought to rethink how they couch the theory and science in general.

Shockingly, it is correct that Hoyle coined the phrase "Big Bang"; what isn't shocking is that the author of this piece doesn't seem to understand or even care why proponents of the theory take some issue with the term. The Big Bang, as it is currently uderstood, was not an explosion, but a rapid expansion from an enormously hot and dense point. This expansion agrees with the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker model of general relativity and our empirical observations, which we'll get into a bit later.

Quote:

According to the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago (BYA), a clump of mass and energy was floating around and then it suddenly exploded producing very high temperatures. It slowly cooled to produce hydrogen and helium gas. About 10 BYA stars were formed from this cooling gas, and eventually galaxies were formed. When these stars aged, some became supernovae (violent star explosions) which eventually produced new stars! (Our sun is taught to be a 3rd generation star). Fragments from these supernovae are thought to have been the source for the Earth and planets in our solar system (why are these fragments nearly spherical and not disorderly chunks?) Our solar system is typically taught to have originated 4.6 Billion years ago.

Actually, current figures put it closer to 13.7 billion years ago, and we aren't talking about a "clump" of mass-energy floating around in space. First, space or more accurately space-time as we understand it and know it today weren't manifest yet, and this "clump" contained all of the matter-energy (not matter and energy – the two are equivalent) in the entire universe. The rest of the author's description is grossly simplified and generic, but accurate enough.

Oh, and btw, stars and planets are spherical (though not perfect spheres – they spin and therefore bulge in the center) due to gravity, and anyone with a high school education ought to know this (watch as this fundamental lack of understanding continues to play out in the rest of the author's arguments). Hell, anyone with common sense ought to know this. Imagine building a skyscraper miles high – what do you think is going to happen? Eventually the building will be crushed under its own weight and pulled toward the center of mass of the planet – this is what makes planets and stars spherical on a much larger scale. Smaller objects like boulders, houses and pebbles can be irregularly shaped, because the mechanical strength of the material is sufficient to overcome the force of gravity – this is not the case for massive objects.

Quote:

Science problems with the Big Bang:

Atheists typically sneer at any suggestion that miracles occurred in the past (a miracle is defined as an event that contradicts natural laws of science). They associate miracles with religious beliefs and arrogantly say that miracles have no place in the discussion of science. I believe proponents of the Big Bang believe in miracles; miracles that require greater faith than believing in a Supernatural God with intelligence and abilities that far exceed our intelligence and abilities.

So finally, we cut to the chase. How sad that the best a theist or creationist can typically do is cry, "Well, your beliefs are just as much faith based as mine!", then cross their arms in a huff and think they've won some point. When your best argument is that others share faith similar to the faith you are so confident in and proud of, you must know you're fighting a losing battle.

Suffice it to say though, there is nothing miraculous, faith-based or even convoluted about the Big Bang theory.

And again, I find it ridiculously disingenuous to paint the Big Bang as an atheist theory or something that only atheists believe. The fact of the matter is the entire Catholic Church is officially on board with the theory, as are a multitude of people from other faiths. Only fundamentalists, typically Christians, seem to have a real problem with it in this day and age.

Quote:

Science Problem #1: Where did the original matter and energy that existed before the Big Bang come from?

Here is miracle #1 for the atheist. Atheists believe a miracle occurred 15 billion years ago when matter and energy created itself from nothing. These atheists should be aware of the First Law of Thermodynamics that teaches matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed. Their faith in miracles allows them to skirt around this Law of Science.

Actually, you've got things reversed. It is theists who insist upon a creation ex nihlo, from literally nothing. Are you now positing that God didn't create the universe from nothing, that He didn't simply say "Let there be Light" and make it so, or that God Himself must have had a creator? No, I think not. The theist position IS one of creation ex nihlo, an atheist wouldn't be caught dead believing something that foolish.
What baffles me, is that you've actually answered your own question here, and are simply too thick to realize it. You've simply projected your own problems onto the atheist, which is sadly typical.

Atheists are very well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, and it is this very concept that makes what theists propose, a creation ex nihlo, ridiculous.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because "nothing" is an incoherent concept. "Nothing" is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because "nothing" quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing – but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories included the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

The most lucid theory going at the moment was proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the "no boundary proposal". Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it – pretty much what I've laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Smolin's theory of fecund universes illustrate what I'm trying to describe quite well, I think. He essentially theorizes that each black hole is the begininning of a new universe, and there is evidence to support this on the quantum level. What we believe happened at the big bang and what we observe to happen at black holes are quite similar. Now why this is an ad hoc theory to a certain degree, there is a distintinction that must be made:

In the end, naturalistic explanations of why and how we are here are infinitiley less ad hoc than supernaturalistic ones, and that's what should concern us as critical thinkers and scientists.

Whew. We're just getting warmed up here.

Quote:

Science Problem #2: How did order arise from disorder?

Here comes miracle #2 for the atheist. Their faith in the Big Bang allows them to ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermo teaches which way a process will go. It teaches that in a closed system like our Universe it will go from order to disorder.

What does the Big Bang preach to its disciples? The Big Bang teaches that the Universe went from disorder to order!

It teaches disorderly helium and hydrogen gas formed orderly solar systems. Someone can believe that if they chose to, but they should never teach it is a scientific position.

This is just plain ridiculous, and again all too familiar.

The Big Bang most certainly does not violate the second law of thermodynamics either, nor does evolution (I never get tired of hearing that one). Theists and creationists would do themselves a gigantic favor to stop pontificating on subjects they clearly have no understanding of.

First of all, entropy is not a measure of order or disorder, per se, nor does it stipulate that ordered systems are not possible, even for a closed system.

Let me assure you that what follows is greatly simplified, but I wanted to take a look at the actual energy states of the universe, pre and post Big Bang.

The total mass-energy of the universe is constant (1st law of thermodynamics). Entropy is a spread in the distribution of energy over quantum states (from a quantum standpoint) or phase space (from a classical standpoint) over time. In more basic terms, entropy is a measure of the "quality" of heat or available energy. It is essentially the thermodynamic principle that gives us equilibrium and states that systems tend to move toward equilibrium - i.e. a hot or cold object tends to reach the temperature of the environment it is in. (Note that while in general systems move toward equilibrium, it is still possible to move away from equilibrium at points within the system where there are energy gradients).

The only cosmological implication I can think of that results directly from the 2nd Law is the theory of the "heat death" of our universe - that once our universe reaches equilibrium it will be cold, dark and desolate (if there is not enough dark matter in the universe to halt its expansion and quantum fluctuations don't become large players, that is).

The theory goes that once the universe reaches maximum entropy that there will be no more free energy to sustain motion or life and the temperature of the universe would be around absolute zero. It is important to realize what "heat death" means here - we are talking about maximum entropy for a given state and temperature. It is very possible and indeed many theorize that before the universe began its current expansion that it was also at "heat death" - albeit at a different, state and temperature. We are not necessarily talking about temperature, but free energy - the amount of work that can be extracted from a system
If the system is at maximum entropy it is at equilibrium for that particular state by definition. Change the state (temperature, pressure, volume, etc) and you move away from equilibrium.

Now for some math and thermodynamics, brace yourselves:
Free energy is the amount of work that a system can do - you can think of it as the amount of useful energy in the system; energy that can cause motion, or heat things up. There are two kinds of free energy - Helmholtz and Gibbs.

Gibbs free energy is defined as:

G = H - TS

where G is the Gibb's energy, H is enthalpy*, T is temperature and S entropy.

Any natural process will occur spontaneously if and only if the associated change in G for the system is negative. This means that, a system reaches equilibrium when the associated change in G for the system is zero (ΔG = zero), and no spontaneous process will occur if the change in G is positive (ΔG > 0).

*-enthalpy is heat content.

Helmholtz free energy is defined as:

A = U-TS

where A is the Helmholtz energy, U is the internal energy of the system, T is the temperature and S is entropy.

The total work performed on a system at constant temperature in a reversible process is equal to the change in Helmholtz free energy.

Now, let's do some math.

(In the below = will be greater than or equal too and less than or equal to. dX will be the partial derivative of the property X.)

The second law states that in a closed system, equilibrium is reached when entropy is maximized:

dS >= dQ/dT

Now, let's examine "heat death". Let's say for simplicity's sake that prior to the universe expanding, it was at a constant temperature and volume.

A little algebra allows us to write the 2nd law as:

dQ - TdS = 0

One can combine the 1st and 2nd laws in a well known equation (I'll derive this if you are really interested, but it should be well known to people in engineering and physics fields):

dU = TdS - pdV

substituting in the Helmholtz equation:

dA = dQ - TdS - pdV - SdT

If the universe were at constant temperature and volume (say prior to the big bang) we get:

dA(T,V) = dQ - TdS <= 0

So at constant T and V the Helmholtz free energy will seek a minimum - this means that for a spontaneous process to occur the net change in free energy must be zero (equilibrium) or decrease (not yet at equilibrium). Alternatively, one could expand the system and reduce the temperature - and this is what we think happened and is happening now.

So now we have an expanding, cooling system. Similarly we can substitute the Gibb's equation and get:

dG(T,P) = dQ - TdS <=0

This means that as our universe cools and expands to a constant temperature the Gibbs energy seeks a minimum. For a spontaneous process to occur the change in Gibbs energy must be negative (if not yet at equilibrium) or zero (if at equilibrium).

In the two cases I've described - two states of the universe, there would be no free energy available to do work and the system would be essentially static.

That the universe will reach another state of heat death depends on whether or not there is enough dark matter-energy in the universe to halt its expansion. Why the universe began to expand in the first place is a bit of a mystery, but ample empirical evidence tells us that this expansion did indeed occur.
So no, "disorderly" helium and hydrogen didn't form the stars, for these gases certainly aren't what one could ever call disorderly from an entropic point of view. Helium and hydrogen did condense as the universe began to cool, and were coalesced into stars by gravitational forces between the molecules.

Quote:

Science Problem #3: If that clump of matter did expand, what caused it to expand and how much energy was there to spread this matter at such great distances?

Miracle #3 for the atheist. Simply put, gravity would prevent this matter from expanding. Without explaining what caused the matter to expand and create this Universe, the atheist believes in a miracle that violates the laws of Gravity.

I marvel at how a person who doesn't even know why planets and stars are spherical can presume to now pontificate on the laws of gravity.

Like I alluded to above, it is a bit of a mystery why the universe began to expand, but that expansion is certainly not a violation of any physical laws, especially gravity. This probably boils down to you erroneously seeing the Big Bang as an actual explosion; you've made it clear that you refuse to learn why people who actually understand the theory don't see it as such in your first paragraph. The energy for this expansion didn't come from anywhere, it was already there. The singularity the universe we know today originated from contained exactly the same amount of matter-energy it does now.

A simple quantum perturbation could have upset the equilibrium of the proto-universe and set it off on an expansion as I have previously described. We also see what may be an analogous situation and a violation of the "laws of gravity according to theists" in black holes, which emit Hawking radiation in the form of x-rays and photons – yes, black holes slowly evaporate, even with all that gravity holding them together.

The point is, even if it is a mystery why the universe began to inflate, it doesn't change the fact that we have obscene amounts of empirical observations that tell us this is exactly what has happened, and the mere existence of a mystery certainly does not lend any sort of credence to one's case for a deity. That we don't know something, means only that we don't know – nothing more. Mysteries aren't a problem for science, rather, science thrives on mysteries. If we already had all the answers, there would be no reason to explore any further.

I can't believe I've rambled on this long without sharing some of the evidence we have for the Big Bang, so allow me to indulge myself:

We have empirical evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This CMB was predicted as a result of Big Bang theory, it is a remnant of the very young and VERY hot infant universe and was first observed in 1965 by radio-astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson who shared the Noble for their discovery.

Then there is the fact that galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called Hubble's Law, named after Edwin Hubble who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

Then there's a little thing called Olber's Paradox, which is why the night sky isn't filled totally with starlight and as bright as the sun. The only plausible explanations for this are that distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity because they are traveling away from us at enormous speeds, or that the light from very distant stars hasn't reached us yet. Both explanations support the inflationary Big Bang model of the universe.

Then there's the homogeneity and isotropy of the observed universe – gobs of data showing that our location in the universe is not special or central and that the universe looks the same in all directions – more support for the Big Bang.

And there's time dilation in supernovae light curves! This was a direct prediction of the inflationary Big Bang model and has been directly observed several times.

Just read the two links above myself today, at least I learned something from responding to this gibberish.

Quote:

Science Problem #4: The atheist's 4th miracle....what caused the helium and hydrogen gas to expand then later come together to form stars.....Laws of Physics tell us the gas should keep expanding....not compress upon itself and miraculously form stars planets and galaxies.

We've already been over this. What, exactly, is the "law of physics" that would prevent this, anyway? Planet and star formation is a well documented and well understood concept, and as I've already explained, the formation is caused by gravity – not a miracle.

We can see the formation of stars today in nebulae throughout the universe.

Stars are born in gas clouds like the Eagle Nebula. It is here that dense clouds of gas coalesce and collapse under their own gravity to form a rotating ball. As more and more material is gathered due to the growing gravitational mass of the proto-star, the temperature and pressure and speed of rotation increases. This is very simple high school level physics. Eventually, the central core of this dense cloud of gas and dust will become a star, and the surrounding disk of dust on the central axis may further coalesce into planets.

The star once formed will persist so long as the star maintains its internal pressure against its own gravity, this is done by the nuclear fusion of light elements into heavier ones. When the star runs out of fuel, depending on its solar mass it will either swell into a red giant and then shrink to a white dwarf while ejecting it's planetary nebula, like for instance the Cat's Eye nebula, or go supernova, ejecting it's heavy elements into the universe.

These are well understood concepts, and there is nothing miraculous about them.

As a side note, I'd like to say that I love it when creationists and theists drone on and on about the "laws of science", as if they controlled our universe. A physical law or a scientific law is simply a human description of how the universe consistently behaves. Human descriptions based on human observations. Because of this they are open to refinement or outright rebuttal as new observations are made.

IDers and creationist like to ignore this fact, and claim that such laws actually govern or control the universe - for example saying that the laws of chemistry control atomic and molecular interactions, or prevent this or that. Utter bollocks. This is like saying that a reporter covering a political election controls the election's outcome by writing the story. It is ridiculous to think that the laws of science, which are accounts of human observation, control the phenomena and observations they are derived from.

Quote:

Which miracles are you going to believe, miracles from God or miracles from energy and matter. Both positions have faith, both positions believe in miracles, the choice of where you place your faith is the most important choice you will ever make.

Sorry, but science does not require faith. It takes no faith to believe in gravity or in well understood and documented aspects of our universe which are based on sound reasoning and empirical evidence. Oh, and notice again that the best a theist can ever hope to do is denigrate reasonable positions by attempting to bring those positions down to their own faith based position. You aren't going to win any battles or converts by crying, "Well, your beliefs are just as ridiculous and as much faith based as mine!" – especially when that simply isn't true.

Also, be sure not to miss the thinly veiled threat as to where one puts their so called faith. Classic!

Quote:

There are many more problems but space is limited. I highly recommend Donald deYoung's book: "Astronomy and the Bible." You can order it from ICR by calling (619) 448-0900.

I highly recommend that you save yourself $15.95, and simply head over to the Rational Response Squad. Reason won't cost you a cent.

In addition to this I highly recommend Richard Carrier's "Sense and Goodness Without God: A defense of metaphysical naturalism". I've talked to Richard pretty extensively on these issues and we are more or less on the same page; and he writes a damn bit better than I do.

You can check out some of the interviews we did with carrier at the RRS homepage, though I think most of those are still subscription only.

But I can give you some free shit as well that is along these lines:

Show #9 - The squad debates the guy this essay was written in response to:

http://www.RationalResponders.com/Shows-6-15/RRS-Show9-24k.mp3

What is evolution? What's the damn difference between law and theory? A response to an ignorance:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/Mailbag/David6-26-06.mp3

Hope that helps, let me know if you need more.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Basically,

todangst wrote:

Basically, these 'debates' are nothing more than free tutoring for the uninformed.....

And thus you sum up the position of the Rational Response Squad and why we don't consider conversations about religion with theists, debates. They're more akin to interventions.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Impressive post, todangst. I

Impressive post, todangst. I certainly learned a great deal.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Yellow and I are both

Yellow and I are both interested in cosmology, and both of us have read a good deal and written a bit on the subject - although neither of us claims to be experts. I hope to find some of my old posts on infidelguy and write up a review of the key points for this site.

It would be nice to have a section on cosmology that we could point people towards....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: It would be

todangst wrote:

It would be nice to have a section on cosmology that we could point people towards....

Feel free to put that on the top of the list, and carte blanche for you as to however you want to make that happen. I actually have put together some Sagan clips I want to put out as an RRS commercial on Youtube that ends with the words....

"Come explore the Cosmos with us

www.RationalResponders.com"

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


dmiclock
Theist
dmiclock's picture
Posts: 122
Joined: 2006-12-11
User is offlineOffline
Listen to Yourself!

Todangst:

Will you listen to yourself. You are babbling on and on about Theoretical Physics. Things that scientists speculate about, and things in which you adhere to as law. I agree, and my hats off to you, you have a good handle on these topics - and most of it I agree with I enjoy speculating about as well.

However, all the math we have is still only subject to the laws we can prove and test. The rest is theoretical. For example We think we know what happens when light or matter crosses the event horizon of a black hole and spirals towards the singularity, but we really don't know for sure do we? Maybe it is anhialated, or maybe it crosses into a worm hole, who knows.

Dude, I don't want to argue about this. I want to discuss the existence of God. So lets all get back to that shall we?

First - I think the reason most of you have a problem with admitting to, or believing in God is that you seem to think that we humans are destined for some higher purpose or meaning in life instead of the pissant, hateful, murderous liars we all are. You guys watched a few too many Discover Channel shows, and read a couple books at the coffee shop and think you're all academic scholars. Your pride barrs you from submitting to a higher power.

Second - If you guys really read and parsed the Bible like you said, and understood it as you claim, you would realize that your blasphemy challenge is defunked and grossly out of context. In summary, Christ was healing folks in his home town (a good thing), and teachers of the law commented that it must be beezlebub responsible. The simple message is that if you see and experience the good works of the spirit first hand and still deny it, then there really is no hope for you. It would be like me coming to your house to pray for you while you were sick, and you got healed on the spot, and then you still go out afterward claiming to be an atheist. At most the folks participating in this challenge are being rebellious.

Third - I cannot prove to anyone that God exists through this forum, or in any words for that matter. It is a matter of faith, and for me that's OK. I can however present you with a challnge that I guarantee will work. Open up your heart, stay in the word, and draw near to God. See what happens.

I enjoyed this debate and you guys are very bright.

Remember - Columbus didn't set sail to prove that the world was round, he set sail to prove that the world wasn't flat!

Big Bang is nice, but its still a theory based on red shift observations from our pissant telescopes.

Evolution is nice, but its a theory based on an incomplete fossil record. That's a fact, not subject to debate at all. Almost every honest evolutionary Biologist would agree.

Dave

All the ways of the Lord are loving and faithful for those who keep the demands of His covenant.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Wow... there's an awful lot

Wow... there's an awful lot from that post that will need to be touched on, however I'm too busy to get my hands dirty. I just wanted to post a video response that dealt sort of with this issue from another youtuber...

dmiclock wrote:

Second - If you guys really read and parsed the Bible like you said, and understood it as you claim, you would realize that your blasphemy challenge is defunked and grossly out of context. In summary, Christ was healing folks in his home town (a good thing), and teachers of the law commented that it must be beezlebub responsible. The simple message is that if you see and experience the good works of the spirit first hand and still deny it, then there really is no hope for you. It would be like me coming to your house to pray for you while you were sick, and you got healed on the spot, and then you still go out afterward claiming to be an atheist.

Oh, and you made a bad analogy. The analogy would be akin to me getting a check for a million dollars, then cashing it, then saying I never got a check for a million dollars. Your interpretation of the passage is such a ridiculous rationalization it almost deserves no comment.

Look for Todangst to point out the projections you made in your first point. Eye-wink's at Todangst.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock

dmiclock wrote:
Todangst:

Will you listen to yourself. You are babbling on and on about Theoretical Physics.

Translation: It all went over your head, didn't it?

Quote:

Things that scientists speculate about, and things in which you adhere to as law.

Incorrect on two counts. 1) It's not just mere speculation. 2) And I don't hold to it as law. Scientific claims are falsifiable and open to refutation.

Quote:

I agree, and my hats off to you, you have a good handle on these topics - and most of it I agree with I enjoy speculating about as well.

Again, it's not mere speculation, and if this is all you can spit out, you clearly don't have much to say. But thanks for the nice words.

Quote:

However, all the math we have is still only subject to the laws we can prove and test. The rest is theoretical.

All science is theoretical! The fact that the math works is a very strong piece of evidence.

Quote:

Dude, I don't want to argue about this. I want to discuss the existence of God.

Translation: You brought up matters of cosmology, and now that you've had a real answer as to what cosmologists really say, you don't wanna play anymore.

Quote:

First - I think the reason most of you have a problem with admitting to, or believing in God is that you seem to think that we humans are destined for some higher purpose or meaning in life instead of the pissant, hateful, murderous liars we all are.

This is a projection. It is the theist who says that people are worthless, unable to save themselves, and worthy of destruction.

It is the humanist who holds that people are a value onto themselves.

Quote:

You guys watched a few too many Discover Channel shows, and read a couple books at the coffee shop and think you're all academic scholars.

Translation: You're not able to win a debate over science, so now you need to devalue science.

You were just able to say something nice about us, why not leave it at that?

Quote:
Your pride barrs you from submitting to a higher power.

Projection: you're feeling a bit inferior at the moment....

Quote:

Remember - Columbus didn't set sail to prove that the world was round, he set sail to prove that the world wasn't flat!

Actually, it's neither. The world knew the world was round at the time of Columbus.

Take a look at the year the GLOBE was invented

The earliest globe, called the "Nürnberg Terrestrial Globe", was made during the years 1490-1492 by German mapmaker Martin Behaim.

Read that year one more time. 1492. And people were making, buying and selling GLOBES.

Quote:

Big Bang is nice, but its still a theory based on red shift observations from our pissant telescopes.

I thought you wanted to drop this argument?

Anyway, you're in error again. It's based on a great deal more than that. It's also based on the COBI/DMR experiment, which also confirms big bang theory.

And then there's this, the smoking gun for the big bang:

Evidence for universe expansion found

Quote:

Evolution is nice, but its a theory based on an incomplete fossil record. That's a fact, not subject to debate at all. Almost every honest evolutionary Biologist would agree.

Dave

That the record is incomplete? Of course! But how does this invalidate the theory?

Just another word of warning: You really don't know what you're talking about, and it shows... painfully....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
dmiclock wrote: However, all

dmiclock wrote:

However, all the math we have is still only subject to the laws we can prove and test. The rest is theoretical. For example We think we know what happens when light or matter crosses the event horizon of a black hole and spirals towards the singularity, but we really don't know for sure do we? Maybe it is anhialated, or maybe it crosses into a worm hole, who knows.

The properties of black holes and singularities have been carefully calculated, and that math checked by thousands of scientists all over the world. The resulting calculations made certain predictions which have subsequently been confirmed through direct observation. It is not a stretch to say we know about black holes in the same sense that we know that the sun will come up tomorrow. Why is this not enough for you?

dmiclock wrote:

Dude, I don't want to argue about this. I want to discuss the existence of God. So lets all get back to that shall we?

That's where all the cosmological discussion came from. You stated that the pre-Bang singularity would have had to be "perturbed" by some outside force to begin expanding. We have explained that it is unlikely that this happened. You now have one less reason to believe that a god had anything to do with the Big Bang. You're welcome.

dmiclock wrote:

First - I think the reason most of you have a problem with admitting to, or believing in God is that you seem to think that we humans are destined for some higher purpose or meaning in life instead of the pissant, hateful, murderous liars we all are. You guys watched a few too many Discover Channel shows, and read a couple books at the coffee shop and think you're all academic scholars. Your pride barrs you from submitting to a higher power.

I think Todangst answered this best.

dmiclock wrote:

Second - If you guys really read and parsed the Bible like you said, and understood it as you claim, you would realize that your blasphemy challenge is defunked and grossly out of context. In summary, Christ was healing folks in his home town (a good thing), and teachers of the law commented that it must be beezlebub responsible. The simple message is that if you see and experience the good works of the spirit first hand and still deny it, then there really is no hope for you. It would be like me coming to your house to pray for you while you were sick, and you got healed on the spot, and then you still go out afterward claiming to be an atheist. At most the folks participating in this challenge are being rebellious.

No, because no one here has ever experienced anything like that. I have never seen anything in my life that can't be explained through reference to natural causes. Your example is a poor one, since how do you control for the possibility that I would have gotten better anyway? If your god is all powerful and wants us to believe in him, he would know how to convince atheists he is real. Hell, I don't seem to have any problem convincing all kinds of people that I'm real, and I'm just a guy.

dmiclock wrote:

Third - I cannot prove to anyone that God exists through this forum, or in any words for that matter. It is a matter of faith, and for me that's OK. I can however present you with a challnge that I guarantee will work. Open up your heart, stay in the word, and draw near to God. See what happens.

Why do you try so hard to talk and act like a rational person and take rational positions most of the time, yet discard rationality when it comes to the question of god? Why, in this one instance, is faith the appropriate mental tool and not the same tool you use in all other aspects of life?

dmiclock wrote:

Big Bang is nice, but its still a theory based on red shift observations from our pissant telescopes.

Wow, you need to crack a book, or at least read Todangst's post. The Big Bang theory has advanced way past these beginnings.

dmiclock wrote:

Evolution is nice, but its a theory based on an incomplete fossil record. That's a fact, not subject to debate at all. Almost every honest evolutionary Biologist would agree.

Dave

The theory that the sun will come up every day for the rest of my life is based on incomplete data since all the days of my life haven't happened yet. I think this demonstrates that perfectly solid theories can be built on incomplete data. The theory of evolution is quite beyond your questioning. Evolution is fact, in the same way as the earth's revolution around the sun is fact.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown