User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
The ignorance of atheists

Would any atheist out there please give me one rational reason that does not appeal to emotion or ignorance for not thinking there is a supernatural reality. Let us put all of our childish thinking behind and think as adults here. All matter and energy came into existences at the big bang. Is this not the scientific consensus? So, what was before space-time and where exactly did the atom sized singularity come from? I am not proposing a God here but I am curious that this seems not to interest the so-called rationalists and philosophers of the atheist community. I do not mean to generalize, but atheists that I talk to think it does not matter, especially to hypothesize about. It is quite okay for the atheists on this show to appeal to quantum theory and M theory, even though they do not know what they are talking about and even though mathematical models do not present any evidence for string theory to be real and they can appeal to ignorance as well without hesitation. They espouse logic but forsake philosophy. Please atheists, tell me what you think is beyond the natural order and what and how did it come to be. It seems to me your position is irrational. Mostly due to the fact that you do not want to think about it. Cue Don Baker and his obvious anti-intellectualism.

Hello again.

"Would any atheist out there please give me one rational reason that does not appeal to emotion or ignorance for not thinking there is a supernatural reality" Because the evidence that supports this belief is lacking. Because all logical proofs of the existence of a god are full of holes. Because millions have been killed because people who believe in the same god, who think they can communicate with that god, disagree so much with each other about the theology and will of god that the only thing they can do is kill each-other. Because promoters of god tend to rely heavily on logical fallacies, lies, and emotional manipulation to advance their cause.

"So, what was before space-time and where exactly did the atom sized singularity come from?" Why don't you ask a physics forum? Does a person's knowledge of physics have an impact on whether God exists?

"Cue Don Baker and his obvious anti-intellectualism." I'm sorry if you don't like my answers.

Maybe someday, you can get off the "I get to define atheism as something I can argue against" kick, and present some positive arguments for your god. All you're doing is trying to shift the burden of proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof Please show me how intellectual you are by giving a concrete definition of your god and some evidence that it exists.

Don, I know you are not accusing others of committing logical fallacies? You may want to think before you cast judgment onto others. As a person who cares about seeking the Big Questions, willful ignorance, especially the kind you practice is not good enough. Atheists need to address serious theological arguments for the existence of God instead of just saying "well, I don't know and neither do you" or "there is no evidence". Well, my anti-intellectual friend that is what philosophical theists, like William Craig try to do. You and your ilk obviously have emotional stress when it comes to having serious arguments presented. I have seen your shows, so I think I am safe in saying you guys and "bitches" are just as guilty as non-critical theists. I just watched two episodes today with Matt Dillahunty defining atheism as in two different ways. I do no care about your nonsensical layman definition, I am talking about the standard definition of atheism and agnosticism used in philosophy. I have to laugh at you for your use of Wikipedia as a reputable source. That just goes to show what kind of intellect we have to deal with. As I said I am refrying to the Philosopher's God. Perhaps you should read a book and get off Wikipedia so that you can learn something. Read a book on natural theology, that is the philosophical study of God. I would hope philosophy would be something you would be interested in. Also, you keep on referring to the definition of god as if a refutation of the definition has any bearing on God's existence. Also, you commit the definist's fallacy. Come to think of it you commit this when defining "atheism" as well, especially the etymological fallacy. Part of the burden of proof is on you as well. You too make a positive claim. I can not help it that the arguments for the existence of God do not persuade you, but denying your share of the burden is irrational. I am to really surprised given your definition of atheism. My question is what makes you think you do not share some of the onus? Cite your sources for me. Please cite Antony Flew, please! As mentioned before by many others here, you guys are considered a big hole who do not clearly know your own position. You, especially have a daddy complex. I think deep down Don you are theist-- a misotheist. You are just angry you cannot get your way, therefor no argument for the existence of God will ever convince you. Why? Because you are just as dogmatic and irrational than the ignorant Christians are who call your show. I'll be watching.

Back again, huh?

Until you provide a definition or a reference to your magic god, I'll assume you have no clue what you're talking about.

Definition are the basic starting point for discussion. If your god has no definition, then I assume it's just nonsense. Please stop spewing nonsense on this forum. You clearly cannot hold up your side of the conversation.

I deny the existence of some gods, but there are at least tens of thousands that humans have made up, so I can't even have a discussion with you until you define yours. Apparently, William Lane Craig is your god, since you can't seem to stop mentioning him. Yes, he exists. No, he is not a god.

If you want to talk philosophy, maybe you should go to a philosophy forum. I'm sure you'll get the same treatment there.

You mistake my theism for a religious belief, I would have no problem knocking that empty head of yours off your shoulders. Magic? Fool what the hell are you talking about? You make assertions, you do not back it up. You refuse to take my advice and do your research. And yet I know not to what I am talking about? "Definition are the basic starting point for discussion". Is that right? Then why genius did you start this discussion with "Back again, huh?"? Your own position allows for the possibility for certain types of gods. I do not need to define anything. all I have to do is point to your own position. Is your brain having a hard time communicating with your mouth? You make the assertion that my position is nonsense with out any clear refutation. "Well, you cannot define it". Brilliant, you got me, obviously I am against a superior intellect. I have told you my position. Do the research yourself. Do you really need me to explain everything to you. William Lane Craig is my god? Are you fucking series man. Are we in preschool. Is this the type of reasoning the ACA and TAE uses against theists? How many times did I reference Craig? I am not sure the number, but I think it was twice. So, how you leap to him being my god, well hell I guess Matt Dillahunty is your god or is it Dawkins? Why don't you do some research so you are not willfully ignorant. Your last statement is completely ignorant and anti-intellectual. Atheism is a philosophical position. Logic is used in philosophy and is a branch of philosophy. The theism I am referring to is philosophical theism. This is why I mention Craig, because he is one of the leading philosophical theists and I assume he can better explain it. I doubt you have ever been to a forum on philosophy. Also, that is a fallacy and irrelevant to the truth. If you are the best atheism has to offer in refuting theist, then you are sad. Your post here is one of the most pathetic attempts to refuse to do any hinting on your part. You defend atheism-- or at least your brand of it-- and yet you have not doe your research. Truly sad. This was demonstrated earlier when you said that I just made up the Philosopher's God. Either you are a fake or you have to be the worse defender of atheism I am ever come across.

TheistX,

Here's the web site to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/). Please find the entry for "Philosopher's God" there.

Guess what? You can't.

Reason: Nobody who knows anything about philosophy takes it seriously.

Let me recap.

You proposed that an atheist is certain God doesn't exist. I explained that mankind has invented tens of thousands of gods and until one is selected and defined, the atheist can only claim not to believe. Once one is, perhaps a stronger argument could be made.

You went on about how I should read a book and how ignorant I am. You told me that your "Philospher's God" is special in that it really exists, yet you refused to define it. You insulted my intelligence some more. You insisted that if I were properly educated, I would know exactly what you meant. I challenged you to find your "Philosopher's God" in a serious encyclopedia of philosophy and you disappeared.

Since neither you nor your god can rise to the occassion, I'll just have to conclude it's bullshit and you were blowing smoke the whole time. Thanks for nothing.

From what I understand the Philosopher's God has certain attributes that are derived from what we know about reality. Of course this does not mean It exists. If God created the Universe, then God is beyond space-time and is not material. God is immaterial, transcendent, and timeless. God is personal because It created the Universe, but that does not mean It is a very personal relationship, considering the problem of evil. Now, they claim that God is an disembodied mind, eve though minds usually come with bodies. But, of course we do not know either way and it could be minds do exist somewhere in the universe without physical bodies. The universe had to come from somewhere and not nothing. The universe came from God. Now God has the property of aseity, according to theologians. So, God always existed. God is not dependent upon the universe for It's existence. This is a some what adequate description of what scholars refer to as God. I left out Good, because I do not think It has any concept of human invention or convention.

Alice,

Thank you for shedding a little light in this otherwise dark corner.

I see little reason to believe in such a god. A god that has always existed and outside the universe seems deeply in the realm of things that cannot be tested or proven.

Yet you have no problem accepting any pet theory in quantum physics on multiverses or extra dimensions. Oh, that's right. I forgot that you will disavow this because you are not an expert (among other things) and accept their expertise. Wow, if you only used that rationale when theology is concerned you may be a theist. It is rational and reasonable to think that the universe was created by something outside space-time and theologians believe it to be what they define as God. I am not speaking of some anthropomorphized god but what is usually defined as god in philosophy. As I said before, read a book.

Besides torture devices, have theologians invented any technology based on their special "knowledge" of the universe? Yet, you're using a computer to read this, which is based on... guess what? Quantum physics.

James Balken said, "Let us put all of our childish thinking behind and think as adults here. All matter and energy came into existences at the big bang. Is this not the scientific consensus? So, what was before space-time and where exactly did the atom sized singularity come from?"

And TheistX said, "It is rational and reasonable to think that the universe was created by something outside space-time and theologians believe it to be what they define as God."

The first cause arguments fall since self-consistent understanding of physics demands that universes can and will be spontaneously created from nothing. Gravity makes it possible for the universe to spontaneously come into existence, as a necessary outcome of the way physics operates. Time did not exist before the universe. Time came into existence at the Big Bang, so nothing came "before" the universe - before is meaningless.

At the Big Bang (time is zero) and (mass had to be zero) the singularity had to be mass less. If there is no time beyond Planck time (smallest amount of time possible) mass does not exist. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe we have to consider its energy equivalent as the initiator. According to the Big Bang Theory, the notion of time does not exist in singularity. Time is a property of space-time universe. In the energy-time version time is a computable element that cannot exist in singularity. Singularity is not time-bound. Mathematicians have worked on the "Theory of Relativity" and its implications regarding the notion of time.According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Singularity by definition is zero size. There are many evidences that zero point contains energy. Casimir force and Lamb shift are proof for the presence of energy in point zero. According to the Big Bang Theory the simplest form of matter (quarks) first appeared after cosmic inflation. The vacuum energy transformed itself into particles and anti-particles of matter in equal number. There is no evidence that at the beginning of time mass was present. With the ultra-dense mass model the matter would turn to pure energy before the reformation of mass particles. The universe started with a burst of energy and that was the source of the expansion of space. The starting point does not have to contain matter. In such a scenario, we do not have a positive gravity force for the singularity. If mass is removed from the singularity. Zero is representing the singularity. The real value of matter has to disappear at the singularity; Singularity does not contain matter (with common definition of matter.) If there are no dimension in singularity space is not a property of singularity. Space and time are bendable and play a very active rule in the universe Einstein mentions that singularity cannot contain topological space. It means there is no spatial dimension in singularity. In other words, singularity is a mathematical point. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe then its energy equivalent is the initiator. The Big Bang Theory, space started at time 0 and has been expanding ever since. The Big Bang was the expansion of everything and enormous energy was the initiator. With quantum mechanics things happen spontaneously. If the point of energy that started the expansion was (spontaneous) the cause is meaningless. If the cause is meaningless it doesn't need to be considered.

God cannot have created Time - in order for time to be created it must be finite, and god would have had to create time before there was time, which is not possible. Therefore, God did not create such things as the dimensions of the Universe, major physical constants and the mass/energy sum total. If God created the universe, then God existed before the universe, and if God created everything who created God. God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, according to the British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. 'The Grand Design' by Stephen Hawking and physicist Leonard Mlodinow say that a new series of theories made a creator of the universe unnecessary. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

There is no theory that requires a Supernatural Being or a Creator for us to exist. That is why it is necessary to have "faith" to believe in God. There is no logical theory about the existence of God, if there was they would present it like Darwin did with the theory of evolution, and then let the experts examine the evidence. There is no evidence of "design" or that anything was "created", but there is plenty of evidence of evolution. Scientists first evaluate the plausibility of an explanation for some phenomena before they apply it to a theory. Scientists can't just say something is possible without evidence or demonstrations that prove something is possible.

Stephen Hawking states, "the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God. That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings."

When someone makes the claim that something "exists" they are required to present proof; like an observation, or the existence of an observer, or the use of a model, formula or an exact method to reach a conclusion about the plausibility of the existence of something that we cannot observe. The purpose of these methods is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors, which determines if there is an experiment that could be done to prove the existence of something. What is the formula or equation for the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural god and what is it based on, and how does anyone construct a model? How do you test or falsify your answer? Why just believe it? Why is deciding there has to be something (with no evidence) a better decision than there is nothing? Without evidence no experiment could support the hypothesis 'there is something' because the lack of any observation (of the supernatural) obviously implies there is nothing that is supernatural.

TheistX said, "It is rational and reasonable to think that the universe was created by something outside space-time and theologians believe it to be what they define as God. I am not speaking of some anthropomorphized god but what is usually defined as god in philosophy. As I said before, read a book." Anthropomorphic is described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes. The bible (about the creation of man states) "let us make them in our image" clearly gods (some other being perhaps another god) are making man in their image. I know (don't tell me - let met guess) you are "not talking about religion". What the hell do you think religion is about? It's about swirly eyed fanatics that believe the fantastic nonsense that was "designed" to deceive ignorant illiterate goat herders into a belief that would enslave them for generations to come. That's what was "designed" and that's what you're talking about.

TheistX, "As I said I am refrying to the Philosopher's God. Perhaps you should read a book and get off Wikipedia so that you can learn something"

You're f*cking kidding? By the way it's referring unless there is some reason to be re-frying ha! And guess what else? It does require faith to believe in something for which there is no evidence; therefore I have no doubt that God does not exist. An idea in someone's mind is not evidence for anything to actually exist. I don't have to believe in anyone's "Imaginary Being" without evidence of its existence.

The only reason to try and use philosophy to convince someone that God exists is because there is no discernible evidence what so ever. There is no reason to query or philosophize over a non-existent God (good or evil) because there isn't one. There have been thousands of God/Gods throughout human history. There are God/Gods portrayed in legends, fables, and stories that date from the medieval era or earlier and ancient people considered anyone an atheist if they didn't believe in their Gods. There is no "knowledge" or first-hand witness accounts of any God. It's all about inspired writings, legends and myths. These God/Gods were used to fill in (knowledge) gaps with a supernatural explanation.

I positively deny that God exists and I am an atheist. I don't think anyone has to say I will never know so God might exist, I say you have to prove to me that something exist before I have to believe that it does. If there is no evidence for it to exist that is enough for me to dismiss it. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to prove that something doesn't exist. If there were evidence for God then a belief in God wouldn't be called faith. Things that can be proven or that do exist do not require faith, and faith is not the equivalent of real evidence.

"What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence" - Christopher Hitchens

All you are doing is stating unfounded reasons for what you already believe, while you ignore anything that disputes the existence of a creator or the duplicity of your assertions as facts. It is simply dogma. That is why religions and other forms of belief systems need to detach their victims from reality. It also doesn't hurt to drop them on their heads a few times. Your insults about other people's intelligence are very revealing since that's a big part of attempting to brainwash someone by tearing them down or denigrating them. That's why there are so many Xian bullies with low self-esteem.

Atheists don't need to use dishonest and disgusting tactics because nobody needs to brainwash people to present them with the "truth."

The universe is self-sufficient and self-explanatory and does not require an intelligent cause. No intelligent person would use some invisible thing for, which there is no explanation or theory, to prove or explain anything. I think the desperate promoting of belief in something without a shred of proof that it exists is because they need other peopl believing their fantasy to convince themselves that it's real. That is how all religion has always operated and continues to grow. That's why it's so shocking when you find people presenting you with the unvarnished ugly facts about religion.

Superstition has been spread for thousands of years even though there is no benefit in doing that; it's the only thing some people know because they can't explain anything. Only when people decided to find the real answers to questions (that religion could never answer) will they start to climb up out of the abyss. What you are spreading is exactly the same thing, and no one has to take it for granted that what is being spread is the truth. Something that is deceptive, violent and filled with error is not beneficial to man. Religious indoctrination does not cause any country to be more moral and that has been proven with facts. The most religious countries on Earth are also the most violent on Earth, and that's a fact.

"I positively deny that God exists and I am an atheist." -- This position is so much better than "We don't have unsubstantiated beliefs" which is an unsubstantiated belief itself, and a false one; or "we don't make any assertions" which is a self-contradicting assertion.

Linda,

You said, "If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe, then its energy equivalent was the initiator." Now, if matter did not exist in singularity, the energy from which the matter appeared cannot be called "material". It wasn't bound to any material carrier, was it? Does this imply that the universe appeared from "immaterial" energy? That seems to be the only logical conclusion.

If time did not exist in singularity, the cause is meaningless, indeed. Cause and effect can only be considered when time is present. This seems to imply that logic, reason, or any kind of natural laws appeared with the rest of the universe. It seems that this "original energy" is not only immaterial, but it is also beyond any rational analysis. This is as much as we can say about it.

"God cannot have created Time - in order for time to be created it must be finite, and god would have had to create time before there was time, which is not possible. Therefore, God did not create such things as the dimensions of the Universe, major physical constants and the mass/energy sum total. If God created the universe, then God existed before the universe, and if God created everything who created God."

-- Exactly. These are the absurdities we encounter when we try to apply finite concepts to infinite and analyze the irrational with logic. Exact same reasoning goes for the infinite energy from which the universe appeared. This is exactly why we need a self-sufficient, self-explanatory, and self-defined concept to build our world view. And here it is:

"The universe is self-sufficient and self-explanatory and does not require an intelligent cause."

Frankly, if I replace "universe" with "God", the meaning of this sentence will not change much to me. It is ironic to hear ideas that confirm my beliefs from someone who denies God. And, I'm sure, Linda will deny that what she said confirms any of my "absurd" beliefs as well. Antifides said, I'm silly to put atheism and faith in one bucket. To me, they are not in one bucket. They are in completely opposite buckets separated by the glass of the mirror.

Oh, "Unsubstantiated beliefs" is what's bothering you! I thought it was because they say they don't believe in god, but they don't say god does not exist?

The reason for taking that position - not to assert that there is no God - is to keep the burden of proof on the theist - since they claim god exists. Or they are making the positive claim. Some atheists prefer the definition "lacking belief in god(s). By using that definition they are not making a claim about the existence of god(s). This is a valid position that is in no way inferior or hypocritical. It is simply a different concept.

Some of us think that what may have made sense in the past is irrelevant in 2012. Most people today would say Zeus and other ancient gods are non-existent. Not putting the savior/god of the bible on the same level as other gods is putting "It" on a pedestal above all other gods or absurdities. Some atheists do say the savior/god of the Bible does not exist. The god theory is not logical or scientifically sound. All the questions about the origin of the universe and life in the universe have been answered by science, and the answers do not support Creation. The absence of Creation evidence is evidence.

Isaac Asimov said, "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

As to the origin of the universe, you don't understand what is "meaningless" and is not "meaningless" or why. "Before" the big bang is "meaningless", because there was no before the big bang. At the Big Bang (time is zero) and (mass had to be zero) the singularity had to be mass less. If there is no time beyond Planck time (smallest amount of time possible) mass does not exist. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe we have to consider its energy equivalent as the initiator. None of this is meaningless because it explains what was and was not the "cause" or initiator. Before the big bang there was nothing - after the big bang there was everything there ever was are will be. With quantum mechanics things happen spontaneously. If the point of energy that started the expansion was (spontaneous) the cause is meaningless. If the cause is meaningless it doesn't need to be considered.

Stephen Hawking: "there is no place for a Creator." Since there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." A scientific theory of the origin of the universe is a better explanation, than theologian's assumptions. God did it! It's a miracle etc… Stephen Hawking, James Hartle, John Wheeler, and others, say that quantum cosmology implies that "in principle, one can predict everything in the universe solely from physical laws. So, the necessity of a "first cause" problem has been dismissed. Theists claim there is a Creator but they don't explain where it is - what it is - what it is made of - or - "Its" origin. Scientists don't explain things without evidence of "Its" existence. Atheists have as much right to dismiss a claim made without evidence as the scientists do.

Scientists don't yield to the theist's theological cosmology. Scientists have offered an explanation of why the universe exists that is useful to science. The big bang theory is the basis for other theories about the cosmos. The reason God was created was to fill in the knowledge gaps, but science has taken away the need for that. Creation hasn't offered a useful theory that explains anything about the origin of the universe or life in the universe.

This thread reminds me of the two men standing on the opposite sides of the river. One yells to the other: "How do I get to the other side?" And the other one replies: "You are on the other side!"

From: AG This thread reminds me of the two men standing on the opposite sides of the river. One yells to the other: "How do I get to the other side?" And the other one replies: "You are on the other side!"

This thread reminds me of two men standing on opposite sides of a river. One, without any supporting evidence or even a modicum of logical consistency, very egotistically and irrationally believes in a divisive anthropomorphic supernatural sugar daddy with omni-power/knowledge and does so regardless of the insurmountable weight of arguments to the contrary and the other doesn't.

Linda, you claim that before the Big Bang is meaningless, but where is your evidence and why would anyone committed to knowledge want to remain ignorant? Thank you for explaining to me your vast knowledge of cosmology, but if there is something, then that means the universe came from something rather than nothing. Also, physicists can bastardize the word"nothing all they want to but that is not what nothing means, unless you want to just jump on the band wagon too. This is the reason why it is "inferred" that God is timeless and immaterial. So, again thank for he lesson. You do realize that Hawking is only one physicists and that there are others who disagree with him right? I have read other posts of yours and you seem to be a very angry person. I suggest you seek help to relieve yourself of some of your problems. Also, you should bother reading other points- of -view besides the same tired atheist nonsense. Hitchens, Hawkings, etc... Come on, seriously? You mention that religion is dangerous, but forget those states run by atheists. Not to mention, there are a lot of religious scientists that have added to our knowledge just as there have been atheist scientists.

TheistX said, "Linda, you claim that before the Big Bang is meaningless, but where is your evidence and why would anyone committed to knowledge want to remain ignorant?"

(Remember saying this to Don) TheistX said "willful ignorance, especially the kind you practice is not good enough." ATHEIST COMMUNITY OF AUSTIN UNDER this topic "THE IGNORANCE OF ATHEISTS".

Nevertheless (the answer) Before the Big Bang nothing existed, nothing meaning the complete absence of everything (nothing) an infinite void. Time itself came into existence with the Big Bang. Some quantum events have no cause, and the question of "before" doesn't really make sense. Gravity makes it possible for the universe to spontaneously come into existence, as a necessary outcome of the way physics operates. Time did not exist before the universe. Time came into existence at the Big Bang. At the Big Bang (time is zero) and (mass had to be zero) the singularity had to be mass less. If there is no time beyond Planck time (smallest amount of time possible) mass does not exist. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe we have to consider its energy equivalent as the initiator. According to the Big Bang Theory, the notion of time does not exist in singularity. Time is a property of space-time universe. In the energy-time version time is a computable element that cannot exist in singularity. Singularity is not time-bound. Mathematicians have worked on the "Theory of Relativity" and its implications regarding the notion of time. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The Big Bang was the expansion of everything and enormous energy was the initiator. With quantum mechanics things happen spontaneously. If the point of energy that started the expansion was (spontaneous) the cause is meaningless. If the cause is meaningless it doesn't need to be considered.

TheistX said, "Thank you for explaining to me your vast knowledge of cosmology, but if there is something, then that means the universe came from something rather than nothing. Also, physicists can bastardize the word"nothing all they want to but that is not what nothing means, unless you want to just jump on the band wagon too. This is the reason why it is "inferred" that God is timeless and immaterial. So, again thank for he lesson."

I'm sure everyone knows by now how important you think you are, but you were not involved in this discussion, nobody was talking to you.

Nevertheless (the answer) singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Singularity by definition is zero size. There are many evidences that zero point contains energy. Casimir force and Lamb shift are proof for the presence of energy in point zero. According to the Big Bang Theory the simplest form of matter (quarks) first appeared after cosmic inflation. The vacuum energy transformed itself into particles and anti-particles of matter in equal number. There is no evidence that at the beginning of time mass was present. With the ultra-dense mass model the matter would turn to pure energy before the reformation of mass particles. The universe started with a burst of energy and that was the source of the expansion of space. The starting point does not have to contain matter. In such a scenario, we do not have a positive gravity force for the singularity. If mass is removed from the singularity. Zero is representing the singularity. The real value of matter has to disappear at the singularity; Singularity does not contain matter (with common definition of matter.) If there are no dimension in singularity space is not a property of singularity. Space and time are bendable and play a very active rule in the universe Einstein mentions that singularity cannot contain topological space. It means there is no spatial dimension in singularity. In other words, singularity is a mathematical point. If space did not exist in singularity and mass was not the origin of the universe then its energy equivalent is the initiator.

The universe has no boundaries because a boundary would place a limit on the size of nothingness, and indicate that there was something existing on the "other side" of the boundary, separate from the boundary itself. This would contradict the definition of infinite and nothing. This also excludes anything existing in any other dimension, or dimensions, as a dimension would then be a boundary. Nothing then, when described as an infinite void, excludes all possibility of anything else existing, anywhere.

TheistX said, "You do realize that Hawking is only one physicists and that there are others who disagree with him right? I have read other posts of yours and you seem to be a very angry person. I suggest you seek help to relieve yourself of some of your problems. Also, you should bother reading other points- of -view besides the same tired atheist nonsense. Hitchens, Hawkings, etc... Come on, seriously? You mention that religion is dangerous, but forget those states run by atheists. Not to mention, there are a lot of religious scientists that have added to our knowledge just as there have been atheist scientists."

I'm sure favorite apologists of fanatics like William Lane Craig and Ray Comfort don't agree, but the general consensus among the leading astrophysicists is time doesn't extend infinitely into the past; the universe came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. The Big Bang Theory, space started at time 0 and has been expanding ever since. It is meaningless to ask what came 'before' the Big Bang because there is no 'before'.

"Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. This is the theory accepted by the leading physicists today. There is definitely no accepted scientific theory that would require a Supernatural Being or a Creator for the universe to exist.

TheistX said, "I have read other posts of yours and you seem to be a very angry person. I suggest you seek help to relieve yourself of some of your problems."

Spoken like a typical finger pointing narrow-minded sicko-fanatic. This is all indicative of a simple minded person whose incapable of grasping a complicated concept and the only way to cope with it is getting really angry. It's well known that people who need help try to reverse the roll.

ATHEIST COMMUNITY OF AUSTIN UNDER this topic "THE IGNORANCE OF ATHEISTS". Here are some of your contemptuous remarks that you made to Don.

TheistX said, "Don, I know you are not accusing others of committing logical fallacies? You may want to think before you cast judgment onto others. As a person who cares about seeking the Big Questions, willful ignorance, especially the kind you practice is not good enough."

Coming from an ignorant jerk like you that was a complement.

TheistX said, "You mistake my theism for a religious belief, I would have no problem knocking that empty head of yours off your shoulders. Magic? Fool what the hell are you talking about? You make assertions, you do not back it up. You refuse to take my advice and do your research. And yet I know not to what I am talking about? "Definition are the basic starting point for discussion". Is that right? Then why genius did you start this discussion with "Back again, huh?"?

Probably because (no matter what the name) we all know your typical rants that are all over the message board. You are the one with the "problem". Talk about someone needing help with anger management issues. The reason you think people should just ignore your vicious, ignorant and nasty remarks is because you need help.

TheistX said, "How many times did I reference Craig? I am not sure the number, but I think it was twice. So, how you leap to him being my god, well hell I guess Matt Dillahunty is your god or is it Dawkins? Why don't you do some research so you are not willfully ignorant."

All of those comments were directed at Don, but they are very similar to the one's you just made to me. You're a 1st class jerk.

ATHEIST COMMUNITY OF AUSTIN UNDER this topic "THE IGNORANCE OF ATHEISTS".

TheistX said, "It is rational and reasonable to think that the universe was created by something outside space-time and theologians believe it to be what they define as God. I am not speaking of some anthropomorphized god but what is usually defined as god in philosophy. As I said before, read a book."

That remark was made to Don (your telling someone to read a book) that is hysterically funny.

Anthropomorphic is described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes. The bible (about the creation of man states) "let us make them in our image" clearly gods (some other being perhaps another god) are making man in their image. I know (don't tell me - let met guess) you are "not talking about religion". What the hell do you think religion is about? It's about swirly eyed fanatics that believe the fantastic nonsense that was "designed" to deceive ignorant illiterate goat herders into a belief that would enslave them for generations to come. That's what was "designed" and that's what you're talking about.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

There is no logical theory about the existence of God, if there was they would present it like Darwin did with the theory of evolution, and then let the experts examine the evidence. There is no evidence of "design" or that anything was "created", but there is plenty of evidence of evolution. Scientists first evaluate the plausibility of an explanation for some phenomena before they apply it to a theory. Scientists can't just say something is possible without evidence or demonstrations that prove something is possible.

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad" - Aldous Huxley

ThiestX wrote: "You mention that religion is dangerous, but forget those states run by atheists."

I infer, that you mean to tell us, that states run by atheists are/were dangerous too. The problem with that is, that you oversee the fact that these so called 'atheistic' regimes were not run by atheists (guess, what the Nazis had written on their belts - God with us!) , they were run by politicians who made their political ideals to a religion with such attributes like a charismatic leader, a bible like 'Mein Kampf', ...

As far as I know, most civilized countries in Europe are run by politicians and not by theologians. Many of those politicians and especially left-wing oriented ones are agnostics or atheists. So, please don't tell us European countries are dangerous. In contrast, you might ask yourself what we might have to expect from theocracies!

Existence is a continuity in time, hence a temporal condition. So statements such as "god exist out of time" have no meaning. Furthermore the statement is nowhere in the bible and therefore this type of argument is easily identified as, faulty, special pleading. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that existence of god could have meaning without time in some way that escapes the best minds of mankind. Then god cannot create the universe for the simple reason that causation is a temporal concept also. Without time it has no meaning. A first cause presupposes time already. Furthermore if god exists, outside time, he cannot himself have the property of time and with creation, which as we've seen cannot occur, he would have to create time out of nothing. So if you use the argument that he exists outside time you'll have to drop the "nothing can come from nothing argument" altogether. As an atheist - by which I mean someone who lacks the belief in gods - I am not in any way convinced by arguments that first fuck up the semantics on a grand scale as to deliberately construct fallacious premises with it. But it might be an effective recipe for self delusion.

My book "The Answer to 42" answers that question. It is on Lulu.com. I wrote it and it is easy to understand. I am Ronald von Mitchel. Just Google it, and you can read it, and you will understand the what, and why, and how the universe got to be, from nothing. No cheats, I promise

From: Ronald von Mitchel My book "The Answer to 42" answers that question. It is on Lulu.com. I wrote it and it is easy to understand. I am Ronald von Mitchel. Just Google it, and you can read it, and you will understand the what, and why, and how the universe got to be, from nothing. No cheats, I promise

You know, the number 42 comes up in my life more than any other number. For instance, I'm 57 and, as you well know, that's only 15 away from 42! The number of light switches in my home is 24 which is just 42 reversed! I own 42 pairs of socks! My wife was once 42! The list goes on and on...oh, wait a minute, it actually goes on another 38 times, making the total--42! I'm definitely buying your book and I might end up actually worshipping you.

I certainly haven't read his book, but it just looks like a clever title. The price of 15 dollars for a 19 page book seems insane to me, though.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a set of humorous science fiction books which is famous for the internal claim that the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42.

The book title appears to be a pop culture reference to the above, and nothing more. So while I don't condone the fact that he's advertising his book here, your snide remarks appear irrelevant and misplaced.

No, I'm not unfamiliar with Douglas Adams' work. HGttG contains one of the greatest logical arguments against the existence of God in the Babblefish story anyone will ever read. I certainly got the "42" reference, hence my amazing anecdotes for the power of forty-two, all meant to poke a little fun at someone I thought was being irreverently facetious. I apologize if I offended.

Poe's Law states:

" Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

@AG Relevance?

Put out the bait and watch everyone bite.

not ignorance, but deliberate denial. atheist as a general group want no God, so they argue from that viewpoint. that is, they take a position then try to support that position. natural evils such as earthquakes, disease, only one habitable planet they know of in the universe, and other like kinds-of-reasons for their stated belief. they champion skepticism but when it comes to their stated position, no skepticism to be found.and they just chomp-at-the-bit to bring up the doctrine of hell. concerning that, God's nature doesn't allow for him to torment (repeated brought-up) his created creatures. the word 'torment' properly has the meaning 'restrain'. this restrain is for the protection of hell's inhabitants from individual who are capable of significant evil; the more evil on earth, the more restrain. those there wish they didn't have the restraint, but are glad there is no God. so God gives them their wish. just as He did with 1/3 of the angelic host. so in the end, God protects them and they don't have to put up with Him anymore.

Do you think that you just don't want Marduk? Is that why you're an atheist with respect to Him?

another thing: the "the God of the gap" response only has so much shelf live,

Boy, so much wrong in so few words. The response wasn't based on "god of the gaps". And, if an old apologetic is refuted by an old response, then maybe it's time to look for a new apologetic.

no consciousness = no God; however there is consciousness. therefore God is an implied proof.

I don't know what you're responding to, but since you made the claim about some mysterious consciousness, maybe you could state your claim clearly and provide evidence for it.

enough with the pretense you don't understand what 'consciousness' is.

the principle of cause and effect: 1. causes always precede their effects. 2. causes are always greater than their effects. it's recognized that consciousness is greater than unconsciousness; therefore, consciousness cannot arise from unconsciousness - - - naturalism violates this principle.

Pulled that out of your ass, didn't you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness

1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious life <!regained consciousness> 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

I don't know that the universe is self-aware. Perhaps you could demonstrate that.

If you're going to make claims, it'd be a good idea to get your definitions down and have some facts to back them up.

principle of causality.

If you're trying to present the ancient and flawed "first cause" argument maybe you should read up on quantum physics and zero point energy in particular.. There are lots of uncaused events, like nuclear decay.

no there isn't any uncaused events. no human has ever witness such, but nice try though.

So you're saying that your god orchestrates every nuclear decay?

In the vacuum of space, particles are created and destroyed all the time. This effect has been measured.

What technology has religion given us? Quantum physics has brought us lasers, semiconductors, and a deep understanding of how the universe works.

nuclear decay is heat on the move which is the 2'nd law of thermodynamics. Yes, God is the Author of physical laws (also moral laws), and 'consciousness'. without God, matter and energy wouldn't organize.

Nuclear decay is about the weak nuclear force and has nothing to do with heat.

Conservation of energy is preserved in these events and there is, as of yet, no sign of gods.

There is a lot to learn about physics and the universe. I don't think you're going to learn in from a church.

nuclear decay can be measured in calories (heat). an oz of radium for example has radioactive decay at 3000 calories per hour.

Yes, as part of the decay, some matter is converted to energy. The important thing is that the decay is usually uncaused.

There is a lot to learn about physics and the universe. I don't think you're going to learn in from a church. ===================================================== talking down; lots of hubris there.

Let's face it. You're not going to learn much about science in the church, nor will you hear much about valid criticisms of Christianity.

RE: From: snowtracks (Posted Oct 6, 2013 at 9:25 am) SNOWTRACKS SAID: "nuclear decay is heat on the move which is the 2'nd law of thermodynamics. Yes, God is the Author of physical laws (also moral laws), and 'consciousness'. without God, matter and energy wouldn't organize."

LINDA SAID: Radioactive_decay&#8206; happens when a large unstable nucleus spontaneously splits. At quantum physics level transitions do occur spontaneously without an apparent cause

Einstein, with the help of Podolsky and Rosen, devised an experiment that would force the causes of Quantum events to manifest. He called these hidden variables, and not only would they be responsible for the uncertainty, they would also be the causes of quantum events. These experiments could not be done with the technology available in Einstein's time, but in 1964 John Bell devised what have come to be known as Bell inequality experiments. And in the past few decades, a number of them have been conducted. The results are unequivocal. Hidden variables, the causes of quantum events, are found not to exist (there are no Hidden variables - things do just happen for no reason on Quantum level) Quantum events remain indeterminate and irreducibly random."

"In the vacuum of space, particles are created and destroyed all the time. This effect has been measured." - okay, guess we have to go with. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The first law of thermodyd says that energy or matter can neither be created nor destroyed................appear and disappear?

Energy is conserved in these interactions. Matter and energy can be converted according to E=mc^2.

The vacuum space and zero point energy are advanced physics topics...

RE: From: snowtracks (Posted Oct 5, 2013 at 5:09 pm) "no there isn't any uncaused events. no human has ever witness such, but nice try though."

LINDA SAID: The laws of nature can create the universe without a "cause" out of "nothing" since atoms produce "virtual" particles that pop in and out of existence all the time on the sub-atomic level. These virtual particles cancel out each other eventually, but in the meanwhile they lend atomic particles most of their mass. And their existence can be measured in electrical phenomena apparent at very small scales, such as the Casamir effect.

The laws of quantum mechanics provide a way to understand how nothing can evolve into something, nothing meaning the absence of something. Now here's evidence that it can happen: The quantum mechanical uncertainty principle allows for particle-antiparticle pairs to appear spontaneously out of empty space for very brief periods of time. These virtual particles (quantum vacuum fluctuations) create measurable effects such as the Casimir-Polder force and the Lamb shift.

The quantum mechanical uncertainty principle allows for particle-antiparticle pairs to appear spontaneously out of empty space for very brief periods of time. These virtual particles (quantum vacuum fluctuations) create measurable effects such as the Casimir-Polder force and the Lamb shift.

If you're trying to present the ancient and flawed "first cause" argument ================================================================= Law of Casuality - every change in nature has a cause.

My point is that that claim is false and I've given you a number of examples.

not valid examples. made oblivious errors - create vs. convert, mocking asking what's the U. consciousness of when you know we are talking about life having consciousness (and pretenting you need a consci. defination), nuclear decay doesn't release heat and is an uncaused event. then asking what tech has religion given us? --- guess that's the example of 'nothing'.

Re: "Law of Casuality - every change in nature has a cause."

Stuff can happen randomly, for no particular reason. Believers call it "the will of God". Atheists call it something else, but the point seems to be the same - there is stuff we don't understand and don't control. This seems to be an argument about semantics.

AG Said: Stuff can happen randomly, for no particular reason.

This seems to be an argument about semantics.

Chuck Says: Right you are, AG. Understanding the words correctly helps to solve this puzzle.

Let's make the word "cause" more specific by saying that there are two distinct meanings for the word "cause".

Cause (A) This word means things such as forces, matter, energy, etc. working together and preceding the effect. These things make the effect happen.

Cause (B) This word means forces, matter, energy, etc. working together in a way that humans (or at least one human) can perceive and understand working together and preceding the effect. These things make the effect happen in a way that humans can understand.

So, now to answer the question: Does every change in nature have a cause?

Using Cause (A) the answer is yes, every change in nature does have a cause. Matter and energy in the Universe are continually undergoing changes, and old things evolve into new things.

Using Cause (B) the answer is no, not every change in nature has a cause that is perceived and understood by humans.

The English language has a huge dictionary of words, and that dictionary continues to grow rapidly. This helps us to think.

Sometimes new words are needed to help us think more clearly.

RE: From: snowtracks (Posted Oct 6, 2013 at 10:25 pm) SNOWTRACKS SAID: "If you're trying to present the ancient and flawed "first cause" argument ================================================================= Law of Casuality - every change in nature has a cause."

LINDA SAID: The explanation is not a "divine cause" it's a quantum theory. If the universe and time came into existence simultaneously "time and universe" that means the universe cannot be caused to begin to exist since there was no earlier time for the cause. The universe was the origin of space and time themselves, so there cannot have been time or space prior to the initial singularity; the idea of before the singularity makes no sense.

Many people can't grasp the concept because Quantum mechanical behavior contradicts classical physics, it is counter intuitive to the way we think about how things behave in our everyday life, so, they perceive any idea based on quantum mechanics is false. There is no difference in that and saying special relativity must be wrong, since it contradicts Newtonian mechanics.

Observations that supports the theory: Inflationary theory shows how a tiny, ephemeral speck emerge from "nothingness" could be boosted into permanence by a period of accelerating expansion and then continue expanding to become "something" the vast universe we know. According to the theory, in the expanding field matter is created out of the growing energy of gravity itself. The matter is considered positive energy, and the gravity is considered negative. The two mathematically cancel each other out, so that the total energy of the growing universe is zero. So the laws of conservation are not violated. Over the last 25 years theorists have offered plausible explanations of both how the singularity came to be and how it then became an expanding universe. The uncertainty principle implies that the energy level of any region fluctuates haphazardly and without reason. It is because of this fluctuation that even in a complete vacuum with an energy level of zero, tiny fields of gravity at random pop into existence from nothing, then vanish from being as suddenly as they appeared. These events do not violate the laws of conservation because the fleeting fields of gravity are ephemeral, virtual fields.

In '79 Alan H. Guth (a physicist) came up with the idea that at a very early stage the universe underwent a brief stage of superluminal (faster than light) exponentially fast expansion. Now according to Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity nothing with real mass can travel faster through space than light in a vacuum, since the energy involved would approach an infinite value. The superluminal inflation is averred possible, because it is assumed that as it is space itself that is expanding, there is no transportation of energy involved. This it seems could have been caused by a super cooled phase transition at an earlier time. A phase transition is a change of state of the relevant system, for example, the change of state of ice to water or water to steam. In the inflationary case, the change would be from one grand unified force in being at the time of the Big Bang to some or all of the four forces of physics that we know today, the weak, the strong the electric and gravitation. We know from discoveries in physics that there is no doubt that our universe had a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something - our universe. What they don't grasp is that there was nothing before the big bang. The singularity started expanding and everything is inside of it (there is nothing outside of it) and we are inside of it. Space, time, matter everything is inside of it. Nothing outside. Comprehend. There is nothing that is outside of the expanding universe. That would mean before the singularity there was nothing, why do we know that, because there was no time, space, or matter - and now there is something - our universe expanding into nothingness and we are inside of it.

Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. There is no space outside of the universe; there is no "nothingness" that the universe exists inside of. Everything is inside the singularity. We are inside the singularity. The universe is completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself.

Physicist Stephen Hawking said: "to talk about causation or creation implicitly assumes there was a time before the big bang singularity. We have known for twenty-five years that Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that time must have had a beginning in a singularity fifteen billion years ago."

poor don, seems to be confused about what 'consciousness' is. the atheist have this board set-up for discussion but don starts whining about no 'proofs', and substantiation about claims. so according him, we drop down to the bottom line without any discussion about the layers above that. some discussion board, where's the moderator?

I made a second response to your original post. The other posts you made were snipes not worthy of a response.

RE: From: snowtracks (Posted Oct 5, 2013 at 11:35 am) SNOWTRACKS SAID: "poor don, seems to be confused about what 'consciousness' is. the atheist have this board set-up for discussion but don starts whining about no 'proofs', and substantiation about claims. so according him, we drop down to the bottom line without any discussion about the layers above that. some discussion board, where's the moderator?"

You haven't given a tenable rebuttal to anything that was addressed. Until an actual rebuttal to these theories that you don't agree with materializes there is no reason for these posts except to insult people and the scientists who don't believe in Creation what-so-ever. As for looney tunes "we wouldn't be conscious. without god" - consciousness requires a god umhummm ? Prove that claim.

Physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space. Georges Lemaître, "As far as I can see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God."

Don,

This reminds me of a bumper sticker "if your messing me your messing with the whole trailer park"?

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

From the officers:

The audio and video from Steve Bratteng's July 13th lecture are now available.