ha ha Owned. I have had this same arument a million times. I also have a degree in philosophy and in History. I like what you said I will just add something to it. "Proofs" of a god are always of the Deist god not any particular god like the Christian god or Allah or Thor. The watchmaker/painter argument is used over and over because the religious person reasons that everything is here and it had to COME FROM something thus they say that something is God. I liked your retort it is something i would have said and have said before. But if you want to reach and change some minds I like to use this analogy.

Saying that somethingness had to come from something that is not somethingness yet not nothingness is illogical all by itself and god gets a pass. If it is hard to believe that something as complex as the universe has always been then it is even more far fetched to say a perfect being like god has always been.

 But to turn things on their head ask them where nothingness comesfrom. For if their was a beginnig and god "created the universe then that means before there was a universe that their must have been nothingness. So where does nothingness come from? Of course they will think it is only natural that without somethingness that nothingness is the default setting.  Nothingness just IS.  It can not come from somethingness and it does not COME FROM prior nothingness it just continues to be nothing.  That same line of thought applies to somethingness. Being IS. Being is out side of time. Time is not real only the NOW actually exist. Time is a human construct applied to the being to measue events within the being but not of the being. All time is inside the being beginning at arbitrary points.

 I like that. I think I follow. Here's where I might mess it up.

Along the same lines (perhaps), could it then be argued that the two can also coexist... a nothing exterior for lack of a better term with a something interrior functioning as our universe which contains the matter from which things are composed?

Cheers!

I am an athiest but i do not believe the Big Bang for one second. Everyone assumes there is loads of science behind it. There isn't. Let me quote WRH THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was this guy named Aristotle. Pretty sharp fella; he thought up a lot of good things. But, occasionally he made a mistake. One mistake he made was to toss an orange up in the air and watch it come straight back down to his hand. Aristotle reasoned that if he was moving, the orange would have flown off to one side as soon as it left his hand. Because the orange did not do so, Aristotle concluded he was not moving. On the basis of this one observed fact, and the assumption that there was no other explanation for what he observed, Aristotle concluded that the Earth does not move and that therefore the rest of the universe had to move around it. Aristotle was a very sharp guy, but the fact is that there was another explanation for why the orange fell back into his hand, and it would wait about another 2000 years before another smart man, Sir Isaac Newton, explained just what it was Aristotle had overlooked, set forth in Newton's laws of motion. But for the early church, Aristotle's conclusions fit in rather well with their theology, which had the Earth created as the center of the universe, unmoving, with the rest of the cosmos spinning about it. Of course, there was empirical evidence available to all that cast doubt on the church-approved version of the Cosmos. One could see during eclipses that the Earth was not flat. The curved shape of the Earth's shadow as it crossed the moon was the same no matter which place in the sky the eclipse took place. A spherical Earth was the only shape that could produce such a result. Ships sailing over the horizon clearly vanished over a subtle curve ( an observation which eventually inspired Columbus' voyages). Nobody could explain the behavior of a Foucault's Pendulum other than by the Earth spinning beneath it. But by far the most troubling problem for the geocentric (earth centered) universe was the strange behavior of the planets. In an age before TV, or even books, the night sky was something every person was quite familiar with, even those who were not sailors or fortune tellers. Watching the night sky over time, the paths of the planets were easily seen to occasionally pause, move in reverse for a time, then proceed forward. This behavior was called retrograde motion. Ah, but this was a problem. The church did not have an explanation for this behavior. Indeed in the King James Version of the Bible, the word "planet" appears only once, and then only as an object to be sacrificed to. There is a very simple explanation for retrograde motion. As the Earth, moving in its inner orbit, overtake an outer planet, it will appear to hesitate, reverse its path across the sky, then resume its normal path. But the idea that the Earth moved was contrary to Church Dogma and to Aristotle. What education was tolerated by the church was "encouraged" to find some way to explain retrograde motion in a way that did not conflict with the religious needs for a universe centered on an unmoving Earth. Rather than re-examine Aristotle's basic claim, the learned men of the day grabbed onto a suggestion made by Claudius Ptolemy called "epicycles". This theory explained retrograde motion around a motionless Earth by suggesting that the planets moved in large orbits called deferents, upon which were superimposed smaller orbits called epicycles which produced a "wobble" as seen from Earth. Epicycles were extremely popular with the church, and scholars at universities with religious affiliations were "encouraged" to refine this theory. And it needed refinement, badly, because the epicycle theory did not accurately predict what was being seen in the sky. Generations of effort was expended trying to figure out why the models did not predict the actual motions of the planets. At one point, it was even suggested that the epicycles had epicycles. No matter how many times the observed results did not match the predictions, the approved course of action was to refine the theory, but never to question the basic assumption. Those who dared point to the evidence suggesting that Aristotle (and by extension the church) were in error in postulating a geocentric universe were "discouraged". Galileo was tortured into recanting his conclusions that the Earth moved. Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake for suggesting that the sun was really just another star, only close up, and that the other stars had their own planets. In recent times, our expanding technology has confirmed that Galileo and Bruno were right, and Aristotle and the church were flat out wrong. The Earth does move. There are no deferents or epicycles, or even epicycles on the epicycles. The models of the universe which are based on a moving Earth are quite accurate and able to predict the behaviors of the planets as evidence by the fact that we send spacecraft to those planets on a regular basis. The theory of a geocentric universe and the theory of epicycles were not science. It was religious doctrine masked as science. The church has never really dealt with the reality of the universe very well. They only apologized for their treatment of Galileo recently and still refuse to discuss Bruno. The Bible, presumed to be the perfect word of a perfect God, still teaches that the Earth is flat, rests on pillars (Job 26:11), and does not move (Psalms 19:5-6 93:1 96:10 104:5). It seems that some mistakes are destined to be repeated again, despite our technological prowess. In 1929, a Cal-Tech astronomer named Edwin Hubble observed that objects which appeared to be much further away showed a more pronounced shift towards the red end of the spectrum. Scientists building on Hubble's discovery concluded that the farther an object was away from Earth, the faster it was receding, and calculated the relationship between distance and velocity, called the "Hubble Constant" and concluded on the basis of this one observed fact and the assumption that there was no other explanation for that observed fact that the universe was expanding. Religious circles embraced the idea of an expanding universe because for the universe to be expanding, then at some point in the past it had to originate from a single point, called the "Big Bang". Indeed, the concept of the Big Bang did not originate with Edwin Hubble but was proposed by a Catholic Monk, Georges Lemaître in 1927, two years before Hubble published his observations of the Red Shift. The "Big Bang" coincided nicely with religious doctrine and just as had been the case with epicycles (and despite the embarrassment thereof) religious institutions sought to encourage this new model of the universe over all others, including the then prevalent "steady state" theory. Then history repeated itself. Evidence surfaced that the "Big Bang" might not really be a workable theory in the form of General Relativity, and its postulation that super massive objects would have gravity fields so strong that even light could not escape, nor would matter be able to differentiate. Since the entire universe existing in just one spot would be the most super massive object of all, the universe could not be born. Needless to say, this suggestion that the Big Bang could not happen provoked the same exact reaction as the suggestion that the Earth might not be the center of everything. Instead of questioning the basic assumption, great effort was made to find a way to evolve the new data in terms acceptable to the assumption of a universe spawned in a single moment of creation. A complex Cosmology theory sprang up, encouraged by those invested in the "Big Bang" to explain why the basic foundational principles of physics behaved differently in the first few milliseconds of time. The math work is impressive, as impressive as that which supported the theory of the epicycles, but it is really just a polite way of saying "The rules just didn't apply when we need them not to apply". An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the "Cosmic Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from the primordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. Like Aristotle, and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiation assumed the signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternative explanation. The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then heralded as final proof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions invested in that theory celebrated. But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the observed motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be less than accurate about the radiation signal detected in space. When the satellite COBE was sent up to analyze the Cosmic Background Radiation, it discovered instead of the smooth featureless glow predicted by the cosmologists a highly complex and detailed structure. Yet again, rather than question the prime assumption that the signal being analyzed was actually from a supposed "Big Bang", research was encouraged to find a way to fit the data into the existing theory, again on the assumption that the signal detected could not be from any other source. And yet, an alternative explanation for the signal was right at hand, indeed literally on all sides. Our Solar System and planets have heavy elements (without which you would not be here) because at some time prior to the creation of our Solar System another star in the immediate vicinity exploded, creating the heavy elements and scattering them into the universe. Every star that explodes creates a planetary nebula, such as the one easily seen with amateur telescopes in the constellation Lyra. A planetary nebula is a bubble of debris in space, and given the presence of heavy elements in our own Solar System, then somewhere out in space there must be the tenuous remains of a billions of years old planetary nebula, the result of the not-so-very-big bang, viewable from our unique point of view near the center. This model of Earth lying at the center of the remains of a supernova predicts exactly the sort of structure that COBE found in the presumed Cosmic Background Radiation. But as was the case with Galileo and Bruno, challengers to the "approved" creation myths face a tough time, albeit funding cuts have replaced torture and being burned alive at the stake. So pervasive is this bias to see the universe as created in a Biblical-consistent "Big Bang" that when William G. Tifft submitted his first article on the quantization of the observed Red Shift to Astrophysical Journal, the Journal published it because they could not find errors in it, yet still felt compelled to editorially distance themselves from the conclusions. The conclusions derived from quantized red shift are devastating to the conventional view of the universe created in a single Big Bang, as devastating as Galileo's first telescope was to the theory that the Earth was the center of the universe. Edwin Hubble (like Aristotle) assumed there was no other explanation for the red shift he observed than the motion of the observed objects relative to Earth. But given the theory that the universe is expanding uniformly, the amount of red shifts would have to be uniformly and randomly distributed. But they aren't. The observed red shifts in the sky are quantized, falling into discreet intervals. This is not explained by the theory that the red shift is produced solely by relative velocity. Some other effect is at work. And that means that the assumption that the universe is expanding based solely on the red shift is invalidated. Some other effect IS at work that explains the observations, quite possibly one that triggers a quantized red shift over vast distances without respect to relative velocity. Which means the universe is not expanding. Which means there was no moment of creation, no "Big Bang" with an epicycle-esque cosmology to explain why the greatest black hole of all didn't behave like a black hole. Which means that the background radiation mapped by COBE which didn't quite fit the Big Bang model is probably the remnant of the stellar explosion that created the heavy elements making up that computer you are reading this on. But the lesson for our time of just how much our society remains dominated by religious superstitions is revealed by the fact that the quantized red-shift is NOT a new discovery. The first article regarding the observed data appeared in 1976, a quarter of a century ago. Since then, scientists as much in the service of superstition as were those scientists who "studied" epicycles have repeatedly tried to disprove the observations of Tifft and Cocke, only to confirm and re-confirm the truth, that there is a quantized red-shift, which casts doubt on the theory of an expanding universe and a "Big bang" creation. Yet even though hard evidence exists to warrant a full re-examination of the basic assumption of the expanding universe, our science classes and TV programs still promote the "Big Bang" view, just as the erroneous theory of Aristotle continued to be promoted even after Galileo proved it wrong, because one theory fits into a theology, and the other does not. Man's progress is not measured by the reaches of his science but by the limits of his superstition. The truth is known. But the truth is unpopular. UPDATE: PROOF THE BIG BANG DID NOT HAPPEN Perhaps the biggest contradiction with the Big Bang Theory is the question of the singularity. The "primordial egg" had to be a super-massive black hole. Therefore no amount of "bang", no matter how big, is going to thrust the universe out into, well, the universe. Cosmologists eager to promote the Big Bang Theory have hit upon the "explanation" that the laws of physics, gravity., etc. simply did not apply in those first few moments of the universe. The present Cosmology theory is that the universe enjoyed a period of "rulelessness" of about 3 seconds, after which the elements formed and the fundamental forces of the universe, gravity included, were functioning as we see them today. Ah, but there is a problem. The singularity formed by the primordial egg turns out to be rather large. Estimates of the total mass of the universe vary wildly, given that the ends of the universe have not yet been determined. One estimate is found at http://www.rostra.dk/louis/quant_11.html of 2.6*1060. From the mass, you can calculate the diameter of the event horizon by finding the distance from a point mass that will have an escape velocity of c. Use sqrt(2GM/r) where M is the mass of the hole (the entire universe in this case) and r is the radius (classical), and G is the gravitational constant. Work it backward starting at c and you get c^2=2GM/r. This works out to an event horizon light years across! In short, at the moment in time when the Big Bang theorists claim the universe was functioning as it does today, complete with all fundamental forces, the entirety of the universe's mass was still well within the event horizon of its own gravity well. That the well was not the product of a true singularity is irrelevant, Newton's equation provides an equivalent gravity field for a singularity or a super dense mass in a localized region. Therefore the Big Bang, as currently described, could not have produced the universe as we see it today. At three seconds, the time the theorists claim the universe started operating as we know it, it would have come under the influence of its own gravity and unable to reach an escape velocity exceeding that of light, collapsed back into itself.

 

And even with the bing bang one is still saying that matter is eternal. People can debate the big bang however it seems to have slipped into the holy realm of thou shall not question it as much as other sill "scientific" hypothesis like lol spontaneous combustion or the taste segregated tongue theory. Scince fucks up all the time. I dont see Religion as a big of a threat to science as I do Economics. Universities are given grants for research by the government. This is controlling science. Look at bio-chemistry and how it is being used to push more psychotropic drug to make pharmacutical companies more money. There is nothing scientific about it but if you pay people enough you can get the results you want. There is a lot of very debatable enviromental science as well. Space is shaky ground they just recently knocked Pulto out of Planet status, and discovered the Mercury has a Liquid Iron core. With unknowns like these right iin our backyard we really know very little about the rest of the universe or how it is moving.

I have not disproved the Big Bang but I believe that it is healthy to continue to question it because it is certainly not proven.

Yikes!About five or six more paragraphs hacked out of that monolith in the middle would have been nice.Cheers!

 

Congratulations, Brian and Kelly, on a fantastic job under a lot of pressure. As I was watching you guys speak, I got the chills thinking that I was possibly watching something with real historical significance.  You are definitely on a big stage now.

I just can't believe the way Ray and Kirk shut down in the face of the 3rd...er...1st Law. It was seriously as if they had never heard of it before, which is amazing considering the number of debates and online discussions they have been in. These guys are clearly experts at filtering out information they don't like. Watching the moderator ask them if they wanted to respond, and Kirk saying "no," was the highlight of the whole thing.

I think everyone should take a seat regarding the strength of the static universe argument. What Brian succeeded in doing was showing that God is not PHILOSOPHICALLY necessary - in fact, there is a theory with solid scientific underpinning that could show the universe to be eternal. Will we ever know if the theory is correct? Maybe not. Is it even the best theory out there? Maybe not. But at least it is a real theory, not a figment of the imagination. 

Plus, it is an error to invoke the Big Bang as some kind of rebuttal to the static universe theory. The BB may have been simply a change in state - the end of one kind of spacetime and the start of another.

Also, Pineapple, "space" is an abstract concept that exists only in our minds. Matter doesn't need space to be in - we need space in order to understand matter.

I will say that there have to be a lot of smarter theists that could have made that debate better. Comfort is a wacko.

Constructive criticism: Good job brushing off the original attempt to argue from the Ten Commandments. You could have called Comfort on the carpet again when he started blathering about the Bible as a superior historical source. In fact, Comfort was invoking faith and the Bible constantly throughout that whole thing, but attempting to disguise it. It would have been a good approach to skewer him every time he did that (maybe you did in the full version). On the other hand, I know time is precious and it maybe wouldn't be good to come off as too argumentative in front of a national audience.

Again, great job. I, too, am so proud to be an atheist today. 

Having watched the video, I must say I wasn't really impressed.

 

First of, beating Kirk & Ray isn't exactly something to boost about. In fact, by engaging them you're only doing them a favor by making it seem like they have actually brought up points worth debating about. Seriously, even most ID'ers call them the laughing stock of religious thought.

Second, both of you appeared very conceited when you made a point that pleased the crowd. When you say "I'm sorry, but..." and your face says "Oh, ****sticks, I'm ever so much enjoying this!", it ruins your appearance.

 

Neither of you seem to be interested in opening a debate with religious people or even to discuss, it only looks like you want to score points from a shallow audience by going after the weakest debaters in the realm of religion. As much as I despise the biblical deity and the concept of Hell, this isn't doing any good.

 

Religion has caused many attrocities and slowned down humanity's rise to self-awareness and enlightment, but you simply cannot deny all the good that religious thoughts does for society.

I am not really keen on the terminology either, it was actually used in a derogatory manner to ridicule the theory. Basically, I like when it is descibed as a rapid expansion of space and time in all directions. No "bang" was involved. 

 

Hi, Maruta.

1. I agree with you that Comfort and Cameron aren't the cream of the crop. However, they proffered the challenge. Brian and Kelly couldn't very well refuse on the grounds that Comfort and Cameron provide inadequate opposition. Also, many people think that Ray and Kirk actually know what they're talking about on this topic. Having them show their asses on national televison has to be a good thing.

2. Are you really saying Brian and Kelly should have shown remorse for countering the theists' points. The "I'm sorry, but..." is simply a matter of civility. Ray and Kirk would've shown much more glee if they were able to counter any points.

3. Name one good that needed religion to be coupled with thought to become action. I'm not talking about a good thing that religious people did. I'm talking about a good thing that couldn't have been done if it weren't for religion.  

Excuse me? Are you one of these people who say we should be nicer to the religionists and not be aggressive like Harris because we won't do any good. Since when did dialoguing with Nazis do any good? Religionists need to be told frankly and boldly that their empty beliefs are wrong and also we want them to shut up and stop trying to convert others. There is no nice way to say that.

Also, while no one can deny that some religious people have done nice things in the past the non-religious have also done so. 'Religious thought' however is the most insidious, despicable human creation which has not produced one iota of good which would not have existed without its machinations but an uncountable number of tons of misery and suffering - it deserves not the slightest respect nor a moment's consideration.

You are a confused atheist and you need some rehabilitation.

 

 

Definately enjoyed the teaser, but now you have left me in limbo waiting for the full show. I don't know if it's possible, but maybe it would be a good idea to put a couple disclaimers in at the start of the video hosted on youtube stating:

1) WotM challenged the RRS to a debate

2) Kirk promised to use scientific evidence to prove the existence of God without invoking the bible or faith

 I think that would clarify and eliminate a lot of the trash getting posted.

Quick off-topic question however, does it bother Kelly when men watch that video and the first thing that comes to mind is their need to post "that atheist chick is hot!"?

LOL...even I noticed, so I hope not. I think Kelly knows she looks good and has made peace with that idea.  Yeah, this is an assumption, but she really did dress for success...or for distraction.  Or both.

Maybe she'll weigh in and let us know? 

Kelly is 5 billion years worth of evolutionary hotness (I think there is a serious point about something there but not sure what it is )

I understand what you're saying about the exact wording, but again, it is difficult to properly elucidate all of that when you're nervous and under time constraints. Least amount of assumptions is correct, and that was the point that Brian was making as far as their assumption about god goes. Not using the absolutely perfect wording is just a minor foible.

Hi, I'm a Christian who saw the debate online. I must say that you obviously came loaded and ready, however, your arguements fall to pieces on so many grounds.

Brian, you attempted to use the third law of thermodynamics to support your claim that what is here has always been here. That law in itself proves the existence of God. How? Your claim warrants a harder question: Where did the matter come from? How did it get here? Science also supports the idea of a First Cause. So what was the first cause? Where you there to witness it?

You claim the universe is infinite. I guess ignorance must be bliss because you must have never heard of the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy. Everything is winding down and deteriorating. It is impossible that the universe be eternal because it is subjected to time and corruption. God is not subjected to those laws.

You know, really, this isn't a matter of who has the strongest arguement or the best display of sarcastic rebuttal. It all boils down to this one thing: You hate God and you refuse to believe. There is ample amount of evidence for His existance, however, you choose to ignore the obvious.

My friend, keep this in mind. It doesn't matter what you or I beleive, what matters is what is TRUE. The fact still remains that you will one day die and face the God whom you have so vehemently rejected. He will judge you, whether you believe that or not. Have a nice day.

 

Well, first of all, they challenged US. Not the other way around. Secondly, sorry if you disapprove of our facial expressions, but it's difficult to maintain a straight face while listening to such nonsense. What we do every day is open discussions with religious people, but if people challenge us to a debate in front of a national audience that they claim is based on science, bring more than your bible. And all the good that religion does for society can be done by secular organizations that aren't focused on proselytization.

It is not. The multiverse is not proposed to have:

1. Omniscience
2. Omnipotence
3. Omnibenevolence
4. Any sort of consciousness

We can't prove it yet. We may never be able to prove it, but at least we have a starting point for scientific investigation. It is very possible that we will be able to infer the truth or falsehood of the theory in the future.

The theory of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, all-just God is testable as well. We can look at what sort of universe that theory would predict and see if the theory holds up. Read "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor J. Stenger to see how well it does.

 

Hi there.

First off, no scientific law (even ones that are misidentified on national tv--oops) PROVE the existence of god. We address the First Cause argument in the debate, so why don't you pick up where they leftoff. What created god? Is the fact that I wasn't there any proof of anything whatsoever? Have you ever heard of the argument from ignorance?

The second law of thermodynamics refers ONLY to closed systems--of which the universe is one, but earth is not. We continually receive energy from the sun. The fact that the universe overall may be "winding down" as you put it doesn't point to a creator.

I don't hate god, neither does Brian. We don't believe in him. Period. If you have evidence, bring it. Just don't bring your presuppositions and baseless assumptions.

We agree that beliefs don't matter. We regard our cause as a cause for truth. The definition of truth is "that which corresponds with reality". How does your god belief do that? After you die, you will cease to exist whether you like it or not. Have a nice day.

First, atheists do not BELIEVE in God. Do you hate Thor? How about Loki? He was a right bastard. I could understand if you hated him.

Secondly, why should we even contemplate worshipping a being so self-absorbed and egotistical that he will burn us for eternity merely for the crime of not believing in Him based on the evidence He gave? If He exists, then He knew before He created the universe that the current evidence would lead inevitably to our eternal torture, according to the rules He set in place.

 

I'm willing and eager to be enlightened. What good would that be?

This will be especially interesting in light of you displaying an acknowledgement of the grievous crimes commited by religious factions and belief in general.

"Yes, he poisoned all the dogs in the neighbourhood, spread vicious rumours severing friendships in the community, axe-murdered his 3 children and painted his house with their entrails... but surely this is redeemed by his smashing sense of humour!"

Good, you admit that the universe is subject to entropy. However, you say that earth is not, how is it that earth manages to avoid this law, being in a closed system, but the universe cannot? Why does ice melt and people get old and die? You did say that "the universe overall may be 'winding down'" but that doesn't point to a creator. Wait a second, didn't you present the possiblity of the eternality of the universe in order to debunk the eternality of God? So then, if the universe is not eternal? Where did it come from? If you say it was spawned from another universe then you begin an infinite regrees. We must come to the conclusion that there is an Eternal somewhere and from this came everything that is. Ok, we have differing views. I'll tell you what, let's just wait see, ok?

 Is it really necessary to use Nazi as a synonym for unquestionable evil?

I am completely opposed to religion... However, so was the Third Reich and Nazi Deutschland in general, so i'd appreciate them being left well alone while you condemn what was regarded as an enemy to them, too.

Wicked to watch, great that you guys have got some more large-scale publicity! Can't wait to download the whole thing!

Some people fail to distinguish the nature of the universe from their perception of it.

These are the kinds of people who say such profoundly ignorant things as, "what matters is what is TRUE". Funnily enough, that statement is precisely the answer I would provide for the question, "What is the opposite of enlightenment?"

The people from ABC told us that we could clap and that we'd be expected to clap. Theists clapped just as loudly as the atheists.

 

I was mumbling the same point in the first row.

Right. Well said.

I don't think Brian disagrees, I think it's simply a matter of how difficult it is to present complex points during a television debate.