Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Observations and Atheism

One of the things that I've noticed, even as a child is that being in rebellion to God seemed to make a person stupid or foolish. Even today I witness intelligent people doing things that are so obviously going to turn out badly. Yet they do them anyway. When I first began interacting with those who live according to the atheist faith, which is by definition in rebellion to Creator God, they struck me as dull of mind and slow of thought. Yet, because atheists, on average, are no more or no less "sinful" than anyone else, I began to wonder if it was simply one's alienation from God and not sin itself that causes smart people to do and think in a really stunted manner. Let me give you an example that has been touched on in recent posts.

Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens.
Every single one of them is an intelligent person.
Every single one of them is an educated person.
Every single one of them has asked the kindergarten level question,

“Who / What created God?”

Most, if not all atheists have also asked this question. Why? Well, there’s a lot of reasons but one of them is a quirky trait that seems to be shared by all atheists. Atheists seem to be, to an extreme very literal, black and white, rigid and repetitive, linear thinkers. If Matthew says that an angel talked to Mary at the tomb of Jesus, and John says the angel spoke in the presence of women, atheists cannot see any other possibility than it must be a contradiction. They really can't do it. Now, some of them are just too stupid to be able to see more than one possibility yet many are at least intelligent enough to have graduated high school.

Nevertheless, the ability to comprehend the nature of anything that can’t be seen or touched is simply beyond the average atheist. Take for instance these scientific facts:

. Everything that begins to exist has a cause / explanation for its beginning.

. The universe had a beginning.

. Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause and an explanation for its beginning.

Until they recognised the metaphysical implications of a universe with a beginning, atheists could allow themselves to agree with Hume, “I’ve never asserted anything so ridiculous as to suggest that something could begin to exist without a cause.” That was the old and somewhat more intelligent atheist.

Realising the spot in which this puts them, modern atheists, the so called New Atheists are actually willing to say with a straight face that something probably CAN just pop into existence without a cause. One of the New Atheists even tells his devotees, that Nothing "evolved" into, well, everything. When one reaches that level of internal confusion, it’s not a great leap to see how an intelligent person can allow h/herself to ask, “Well, if God made the universe, who made God?”

Remember, atheists have no problem with saying that something is infinite, or that it has always existed, or that it’s eternal, as long as that something isn’t Creator God. However, if God exists, then He exists outside of and prior to the universe. God is not material. He is Spirit. He does not need a cause. He has always been. He is infinite. He is eternal. Asking, “What caused an infinite or eternal Being to begin?” or, “When did an eternal being begin to exist?” is illogical and incoherent.

Illogical statements are something that atheists usually take great pains to avoid, except when they’re confronted with the reality of Creator God. Then, it seems, all bets are off. The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true, that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself. There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule.

When it comes to the origins of our universe, we must choose between Matter as infinite and Creator God who is Spirit, as infinite and eternal (existing outside of time). Reason states that it must be One and not the other for matter cannot pre-exist itself either physically or chronologically, nor can matter bring itself into existence or create itself. Again, it is impossible for Matter to be infinite or to exist from eternity past.

Again, atheists used to agree that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause. Confronted with the reality of the nature of matter, modern atheists, supposedly intelligent atheist insist that Creator God, who is Spirit, must also adhere to the law of first cause. Again, it is so elementary it's difficult to understand how these individuals cannot grasp that physical laws do not apply to Spirit. Since God is by definition outside the universe, He is not part of any series, be it regressing or not. That means that the rules of the series, including the rules of causation will not and cannot apply to Him.

1) Matter is eternal - or
Creator God is eternal

2) If Matter isn’t eternal then Matter is able to bring itself into existence - or
Creator God brings matter into existence

3) Matter, against impossible odds, accidentally or purposely produces life - or
Creator God purposely produces life from Matter

4) Matter arranges and designs itself exquisitely and intricately - or
Creator God arranges and designs Matter exquisitely and intricately

5) Matter produces a life of meaning and context and purpose - NOT! - or
Creator God produces a life of meaning and context and purpose.

Modern atheists will tell you that since the first supposition is impossible and the second is unpalatable, "Nothing caused the universe to come into being. It just happened and we need not consider it further. Please pass the cookies."

“So vast, without any question, is the divine handiwork of the Almighty Creator.”
Nicolaus Copernicus, cited in Owen Gingerich, “God’s Universe" (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006) 9.

70 comments:

Hugo said...

Hello!

From your text, we can read that you consider your god to be ''existing outside of time'' and ''outside the universe''. You also state that ''Creator God, who is Spirit'' is not bound by any physical laws since ''physical laws do not apply to Spirit''.
Correct?

To make it even clearer, you make the claims that:
- God exists
- God cannot be proven empirically
(as no physical laws apply to God)

This means that you cannot prove God using physical evidence and are thus left with reason and logic alone. Correct?
Or perhaps you have other means I am not aware of as ''reason and logic'' vs ''physical evidence'' is definitely not a dichotomy. Let me know, I am really interested in knowing what ''tools'' you use to prove your god's existence.

Now, since I am sure that you have heard all sorts of rebuttals to your claims, I will try a different approach to make you think a little bit.

Take a look at this logical model:

*****************************
Person A has a concept of X in his mind.
Person B had a concept of X in his mind.
Therefore X exists.

*****************************

Would you say that? :
A) The model is correct
B) The model is not always correct
C) The model is never correct


Looking forward for an answer...
Cheers!

Leo B. Vadalà said...

Given the multiple strawmen in Hugo's comment, I could not help but think of a song in a certain classic movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOKK8mAkiUI

Hugo said...

Point ONE strawman argument please...

I am QUOTING Makarios, plus I am asking him if what I said is correct, precisely to avoid using strawmen arguments.

Plus, what's really funny is that I did not even try to prove him wrong on anything... yet.

What's wrong with you Leo!?

Hugo said...

Sorry Makarios to pollute your comment section with this but I needed to reply to something really funny that I just read on Leo's profile...

Leo, your profile states:

"I am inspired by I Peter 3:15: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.""

You just sent a link to a video called "...If I Only Had A Brain"; that's what you call being gentle and respectful?
LOL ;)

Makarios said...

"Let me know, I am really interested in knowing what ''tools'' you use to prove your god's existence."

“Proving” that God exists is not possible. Not yet anyway. However, I believe that evidence for His existence that goes beyond a reasonable doubt is available. I talk about it here:

http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/09/irrefutable-mmm-maybe-not.html
==================

C) The model is never correct

Leo my friend, are you going to let yourself get dragged back into this mess. I appreciate your support Leo but you don't need to do this. Life is short. Enjoy it.

JD Curtis said...

There are a mnumber of things that exist that we cannot prove via the scientific method that we are all rational to believe in.

Hugo said...

Thanks for your quick answer Makarios. I will look into this!

And I am glad that we agree on the fact that the fallacy model I presented is never correct, no matter what X is.
More on that later...

Leo B. Vadalà said...

To be precise, your first argument is better classified as a "red herring" than as a strawman, attempting to avoid the unassailable logic of Mak's post by running after another argument: i.e., not being able to prove God empirically and therefore being left with reason and logic alone. You are putting words into his mouth in an attempt to distract from the argument.

But the pure strawman is your "logical" model toward the end:
*****************************
Person A has a concept of X in his mind.
Person B had a concept of X in his mind.
Therefore X exists.
*****************************

This strikes me as a distorted version of the ontological argument, set up as a strawman to easily knock down. The problem is, again, it has nothing to do with the thrust of Mak's argument.

Hugo said...

@JD Curtis
"There are a mnumber of things that exist that we cannot prove via the scientific method that we are all rational to believe in."

Numbers of things?
That we ALL rational to believe in?

Name me just one, just for the fun of it...

By the way, are you really a fan of Ray Comfort?

Leo B. Vadalà said...

Yes, Hugo, you are correct. My bad. Given the general tone of the original post and some of the vicious attacks from the plethora of atheist commenters, I couldn't resist the temptation to have a little fun. I didn't think anyone would take offense but apparently I was wrong. If this offended you or anyone else, I am sorry.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to look at my blog. I am flattered.

Hugo said...

@Leo

I asked Makarios about his "tools" to prove God besides physical evidence and he has gladly shared a blog post that I will read. That's a proper way to discuss things.

The fallacy model I presented was not an argument, not at all, I was just asking a question, to see what we agree on or not. Isn't that useful?

Stop extrapolating my comments if you want to try to address them.

Hugo said...

@Leo

Alright, I was replying at the same time as you...

No offense, don't worry!

JD Curtis said...

This is an easy one Hugo. Simply spend the next two minutes observing a short clip entitled Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins. Enjoy.

Gorth Satana said...

What's it called when you make dozens of arguments a minute in a debate in an effort to overwhelm an opponent?
I know the technique has a name.

JD Curtis said...

What? Gish Gallop? It's not that Gorth, 'cause the guy was right.

Gorth Satana said...

Gish Gallop. Thanks.
I'll watch the clip now.

JD Curtis said...

Atkins walked right into that one. Ya gotta admit.

Gorth Satana said...

Such hugely sweeping statements with not even an attempt at giving evidence.
It would take many minutes to correct Craig.
I notice the video fades out to cut off the other man's answer.

Gorth Satana said...

"Atkins walked right into that one. Ya gotta admit."

Since Craig seems to ALWAYS use the same "arguments", he could have known what was coming. If only they had youtube in 1998!

JD Curtis said...

Go ahead Gorth. "Correct" Dr Craig. I'll check back sometime tomorrow. No hurry.

Gorth Satana said...

I just watched the other guy's answer. (in another video, it's left out of JD's video) He addresses many of Craig's points until the moderator says "I don't want to spend the entire half hour on these points"
I consider this an example of "Gish Gallop".

Gorth Satana said...

"Go ahead Gorth. "Correct" Dr Craig. I'll check back sometime tomorrow. No hurry."

There's already a lot of writing debunking Craig's points in English. You have google.

Hugo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugo said...

TYPO corrected...


''Go ahead Gorth. "Correct" Dr Craig. I'll check back sometime tomorrow. No hurry.''

I just finished watching the video. Really short, thank you.

Craig is 100% right. Science can't prove everything.

So what?

We only see a short part of the conversation and it's the most useless...

The other guy was wrong when saying science can explain everything.

Perhaps he meant that for all that we know, we used science. For the rest, it depends...

JD Curtis said...

Hugo, Dr Atkins plainly said that science is omnipotent that it can explain everything. Obviously, he was wrong.

Why are such scientific demands put on the existance of God? Perhaps He isnt something that will magically appear under your microscope for analysis. Have you ever considered that?

Hugo said...

@JD Curtis
Dr Atkins was wrong, agreed.

"Why are such scientific demands put on the existance of God? Perhaps He isnt something that will magically appear under your microscope for analysis. Have you ever considered that?"

Not sure what you mean by "scientific demands"... but you seem to put it backward; why do you use special pleading to justify the claim "God exists"?

You did not answer one of my question adressed to you directly:
"are you really a fan of Ray Comfort?"
i.e. Are you a young-earth creationist?

Correct me if I am wrong and he is not...

JD Curtis said...

I read and blog over there from time to time. (Comfort's) I agree with Comfort in that I don't know the age of the earth is. I don't try to debate YEC because I don't know enough about it. ID is much more interesting IMHO.

Here is about as good of a defense for YEC as I have read in awhile if anyone is so inclined. Personally? I'm not so sure the Bible necessarily calls for a young earth though.

Hugo said...

@JD Curtis

When you say " I agree with Comfort in that I don't know the age of the earth is"

I hope you mean you don't know the EXACT age... I don't know the EXACT age either, but I don't have to search the Net to be able to tell you right away that it's around 4.6 billion years old.

So, I will say that I know, 100% sure, that the planet Earth is older than 4 billion years old...

The YEC blog post you suggested states that the Earth is younger than 4 billion years old; so I see no point in reading through it all unfortunately.

I hope you won't consider that as being close minded as we can't obviously give equal value to any sources/opinions...

IE is usually more interesting, I agree, that's why I'll take the time to answer to Makarios' justification for God's existence.
(when I am not at work...)

Hugo said...

Typo!
IE = ID
(intelligent design)
sorry...

JD Curtis said...

The YEC blog post you suggested states that the Earth is younger than 4 billion years old; so I see no point in reading through it all unfortunately.

I hope you won't consider that as being close minded as we can't obviously give equal value to any sources/opinions...


I'm not willing to dismiss out of hand, an explanation just because it may seem incredible to some people. Again, the article I cited helps explain the view of the Young Earth Creationist. That's all

If the majority of scientists came out tomorrow and stated that they find that the Cosmic Ice Theory is at least credible, would that change your mind about it? Say, 95% would hold that view for example.

Hugo said...

I'm not willing to dismiss out of hand, an explanation just because it may seem incredible to some people. Again, the article I cited helps explain the view of the Young Earth Creationist. That's all

The question is not whether it seems incredible to some people, the question is: is it possibly true or not according to what we know? What would it change/contradict if it were true?

In the general sense, I agree that we must not dismiss ideas too quickly, as we would never progress by doing so, but there are things that we already know so we can’t dismiss that either, just to open the door to anything else.

Saying the Earth is 6000 years old contradicts thousands of scientific papers, whole scientific fields, historical evidence... all at once! It’s not even an alternative, or an option, it’s just plain wrong.

Look, if I were to point to you to a site that explains how the Earth is flat, would you look at it and take some time to read all the arguments related to the fact that the Earth is flat? I don’t see why you would do such thing.

Actually I even have an example for you. Go read this humorous but meaningful text that explains how gravity is “just” a theory and should not be taught in school as being a fact:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

If the majority of scientists came out tomorrow and stated that they find that the Cosmic Ice Theory is at least credible, would that change your mind about it? Say, 95% would hold that view for example.
That’s not how scientific reasoning works so I can’t answer the question the way it is asked; science is not some sort of democracy you know ;)

Rabhimself said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JD Curtis said...

All too often, there are those who simply resort to the "Science Fetishist" position. "Science fetish = includes 1) the belief that any statement by a scientist is a) inherently credible, and b) science; 2) the belief that science is the only reliable method of determining facts; 3) the belief that the truth of a statement is dependent upon how many scientists agree it is true."

Such thinking is so intellectually dishonest that it boggles the mind. Unfortunately, I find that many (most, not all) of your co-religionists have this fault.

Hugo said...

LAST post to JD

"All too often, there are those who simply resort to the "Science Fetishist" position. "Science fetish = includes 1) the belief that any statement by a scientist is a) inherently credible, and b) science;"

No, no and NO. You are WRONG.

That's not how I think, that's not how you think, that's not how scientists think. QED.
You assert something that is WRONG. If someone thinks the way you just described it, it's BAD.

2) the belief that science is the only reliable method of determining facts

In the REAL world, yes, it is! I would not say science only though. I would say PEARL. Physical evidence, reason and logic. I Think I should called myself a PEARList. Say Atheist if you want, I don't care ;)

3) the belief that the truth of a statement is dependent upon how many scientists agree it is true.
LOL, and next, you are going to say: Christianity has existed for centuries!!! It must be true!!! MOST people believe in God!! It must be true!!!
... but NOT for science!
LOL
Anyway, it's pointless. Something is not true depending on the number of people who believe it. Truth depends on the proof, the evidence, the tools you use to prove what you want to prove.

And I already said that. I will quote MYSELF:
"science is not some sort of democracy you know"


Do you even read what other people tell you? Do you even try to understand? lol

Such thinking is so intellectually dishonest that it boggles the mind.

Of course, the way you present it, it IS insane!.

If someones was to have the set of beliefs you mention, that would be ridiculous. Who believes such things? You put words in others' mouth. Strawman...

I don't think it would be necessarily dishonest though. But that's another question.

Unfortunately, I find that many (most, not all) of your co-religionists have this fault.
I don't know who you are talking about. I don't have fellow co-religion partner whatsoever. Religion is useless to me. Sometimes we, among friends and co-workers, talk about it, but it's just the way we talk about any other imaginary things that some people believe in...

All you said was wrong about "us", so how can you say it's dishonest? You don't understand. Sorry to tell you.

We are among the first humans to be able to look at the sky and not wonder, but KNOW, how it all came up to be like that. We are the first humans to KNOW how our own body evolved, where species come from, how life began and evolved from simple to complex diversity.

We are the FIRST. Why can't you embrace that fact? Why do you need to let the door open to absurd YEC ideas. Waste of time...

Makarios said...

I was about to suggest that there is entirely too much laughing out loud going on but I see Hugo has given us an oportunity that simply can't be missed.

"We are among the first humans to be able to look at the sky and . . . KNOW, how it all came up to be like that."

Ya, like Dawkins says, Nothing "evolved" into everything LOL

"We are the first humans to . . . KNOW how life began"

Dawkins again, Inanimate and inorganic gases “evolved” into life - LOL

Ya, you guys know alright. Like JD says, just because one or even a thousand atheists say something is true, that doesn't make it so.

Hugo said...

@Makarios

Nice timing, I was reading some of your more recent posts and comments :)

Concerning your last comment, I agree with that: "just because one or even a thousand atheists say something is true, that doesn't make it so."
but what's your point?

My point was that astrophysics explain how galaxies/star/planets form, therefore when we look at the sky, we know what we are looking at, unlike any human being who lived before, hum, let's say, 1900 to be genereous?

Same goes for biology, we look at any animal, including humans, and we can tracks its origin along a wonerful tree of species. We don't wonder anymore how it could be possible for such a complicated machine to evolve naturally, we just know how it's possible and how it happened.

Now, I don't think that you reject any of this yourself Makarios, since from what I read here you accept science, and that's just what modern science tells us that I am enumerating, nothing more.

That's why I was replying specifically to JD who made the ridiculous claim that we should not dismiss YEC... what a joke... I am sure you agree with me on this one but you'll be more moderate because JD is "on your side".

That being said, I am not trying in no way, using these facts, to claim that your definition for God is wrong or impossible, there are other approach to discuss that issue. But again, I am still at work while writing this so I'll need to sit down and reply to your arguments later Makarios, because yours deserve attention, unlike YEC for example...

Makarios said...

It sounded to me as though your point was, We know how the universe and life itself came to be.

Atheists do not know the answer to either of these problems. They haven't got a clue. And in fact they are at such a dead end regarding origins atheists are now willing to say that Nothing brought everything into being, or that Something can come into being without a cause.

And MY second point is that just because Richard Dawkins says something, no matter how anti scientific it may be, i.e., Nothing evolved, and inert gases evolved, people DO believe it.

Hugo said...

@Makarios

It sounded to me as though your point was, We know how the universe and life itself came to be.

I agree that it would be dishonest to claim to know exactly how the universe came to be, as our current theories can't explain how energy or matter can be created. But you'll agree that the opposite is not true at all, we don't don't know anything, far from it...

I think it's a bit different for life though, as the Theory of Evolution is very solid and can explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't forget that it does not attempt to explain the origin of life iteself though. That's Abiogenesis Theory, which is not even part of biology...

So what about abiogenesis? It's solid too, not as much as evolution I think, but we are far from the ligthning in a mud puddle idea nowadays!

Anyway, I am not here to teach anything, as from my I understand, you do accept science Makarios, so there's no problem there. but if you contradict it to suit your religious beliefs, that's another story, and I will point that out if you do state false claims.

Atheists do not know the answer to either of these problems. They haven't got a clue.

Of course, non-belief in God has nothing to do with knowledge. "We" was used in the sense of human beings, our current knowledge, something like that; just like "WE know the Earth travels around the Sun", that kind of "we".

And in fact they are at such a dead end regarding origins atheists are now willing to say that Nothing brought everything into being, or that Something can come into being without a cause.

No idea what you mean here, who says such non-sense? ...strawman?

And MY second point is that just because Richard Dawkins says something, no matter how anti scientific it may be, i.e., Nothing evolved, and inert gases evolved, people DO believe it.

If people believe things just because Dawkings says them it's their problem, and they are wrong for doing so. You want me to defend them anyway? Nonsense...

But I am curious to know what you are refering to exactly. What did Dawkins say that was anti-scientific? He certainly did not say that nothing evolved so what do you mean? Any quote?

And, you did not address the YEC issue. Who do you agree with, me or JD? ;)

Makarios said...

“Don't forget that it does not attempt to explain the origin of life”

Don’t forget that it’s precisely the origin of life that Dawkins is talking about when he says that inanimate and inorganic gases evolved. Secondly, the theory of evolution is anything but solid. While adaptation / micro evolution is well-documented there is not a shred of evidence for macro evolution.
===========

"I will point that out if you do state false claims.”

Will you now? I thought you were the one who was going to examine the reasons for why I believe in God and get back to me. Perhaps it was someone else.
===============

"No idea what you mean here, who says such non-sense?"

Really? Well let’s take a look at what we’ve got.

. According to atheists nothing supra natural exists.

. Nothing natural existed until AFTER the Big Bang.

So what we are left with is?

That’s right. Nothing.

Now, we do know a few things for sure.
. Whatever begins to exist has a Cause for the beginning of its existence

. We also know that the universe began to exist

. Therefore, the universe has a Cause for the beginning of its existence.

If nothing natural existed until after the Big Bang and if it wasn’t a supernatural Cause then atheists are left with Nothing as the cause for the beginning of the universe.

If you can think of any other options . . .
=========

Richard Dawkins wrote the following in his 2004 book "The Ancestor's Tale":

“The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing-is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."

Isn’t that amazing? Richard Dawkins is not only willing to lie to himself, but he is FORCED to lie to himself in order to maintain his faith in atheism. And it truly is faith in atheism because to believe that life, LIFE came from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules, which themselves had to have EVOLVED (he’s saying that gases evolved) is to believe something in the complete absence of evidence as it’s defined by the scientific method of inquiry.

Remember, this is the same Richard Dawkins who said, "I am sceptical of ANY strongly held belief in the absence of evidence."

This is the same Richard Dawkins who, in the complete absence of evidence tells us that even as I type this, there is life on a billion other planets in our universe.

I do congratulate Dawkins on accepting that everything came from literally NOTHING.

Nevertheless, to say that the universe EVOLVED out of nothing is not only an incoherent and illogical statement but another example of atheist blind faith since once again there is absolutely no evidence to support let alone suggest that happened.

In fact there is a mass of evidence saying that the universe did not and could not come from anything because there wasn’t any Thing, nor any Place for "nothing" to evolve.

This is just another example of the fact that in order to be an atheist, you have to lie to yourself.

Gorth Satana said...

"This is the same Richard Dawkins who, in the complete absence of evidence tells us that even as I type this, there is life on a billion other planets in our universe."

Citation needed.

Hugo said...

HUGO: Don't forget that it does not attempt to explain the origin of life
MAKARIOS: Don’t forget that it’s precisely the origin of life that Dawkins is talking about when he says that inanimate and inorganic gases evolved.


HUGO: What the hell are you talking about?

MAKARIOS: Secondly, the theory of evolution is anything but solid.

HUGO: Hum, what can I say... LOL. I thought you accepted science? The Theory of Evolution is, in a way, even better than the Theory of Gravity. Do you believe in gravity? Yes of course. Can you tell me where mass comes from exactly? NO. Then, how come we have gravity if we can't explain mass? But you probably don't even know what I am talking about...

MAKARIOS: While adaptation / micro evolution is well-documented there is not a shred of evidence for macro evolution.

HUGO: Oh my god... again... I thought you accepted science? When was the last time you read about evolution!? Biologists don't even talk about micro and macro evolution anymore, because it's the SAME thing! There is not difference at all. Macro evolution is simply micro evolution but for a longer period of time. Speciation occurs because what you call micro-evolution causes changes in population, and after a while, individuals seperate into different new populations, and eventually they can't bread with each other. Tadam! A new specie was born! Is it that hard to understand?
You're more ignorant than I thought Makarios...

HUGO: I will point that out if you do state false claims.
MAKARIOS: Will you now?


HUGO: Done! Quickly but straight to the point, see above...

MAKARIOS: I thought you were the one who was going to examine the reasons for why I believe in God and get back to me. Perhaps it was someone else.

HUGO: Yes, you are right, but I did not have time to do so yet. You suggested me one of your post where you give a detailed description of why you believe in God, and I will address it soon. But as I said before, I think you did a good job with this post so you do deserve a good thoughtful response. We do agree on most of what you say so it's more subtle than just saying “you are wrong”. But I have to admit that you lack of scientific knowledge is larger than I expected...


MAKARIOS: According to atheists nothing supra natural exists.
. Nothing natural existed until AFTER the Big Bang.
So what we are left with is?
That’s right. Nothing.


HUGO: Ok, I will explain something to you. It might not be the case for everyone, but personally, as soon as you write something like “According to atheists...”, it has NO value at all. First because Atheists have only 1 thing in common, non-belief in a god or gods, so you can't say what they believe in, only what they DON'T believe in. And second, even if we were to put most Atheists together in a group, you would still be wrong, because what you say is non-sense. You put words in Atheists mouth. You either don't understand what Atheists tell you, or willingly make straw man arguments to make Atheists look like idiots.

Hugo said...

MAKARIOS:
Now, we do know a few things for sure.
. Whatever begins to exist has a Cause for the beginning of its existence
. We also know that the universe began to exist
. Therefore, the universe has a Cause for the beginning of its existence.


HUGO: Ya, I know, I did read your argument already, I just did not take the time to reply to it, but since you put a short fragment of it right now, I might answer it quickly. The simplest answer is this: We don't know what caused the Big Bang. We don't know what cause the universe to exists. If you have a better alternative, let us know, you might win a fucking Nobel prize! Who knows! But if you're answer is something like “There must be an intelligent mind behind all this”, well that's pointless... How did that mind do it then? We try to understand how things work, not pretend.

MAKARIOS:If nothing natural existed until after the Big Bang and if it wasn’t a supernatural Cause then atheists are left with Nothing as the cause for the beginning of the universe.
If you can think of any other options . . .


HUGO: Same thing again but I split it in to because that second part is just even worse. You talk about the Big Bang, a scientific theory, and then in the next sentence you talk about Atheists. What's wrong with you!? How can you jump from science to non belief in a god? But don't worry, many many Theists do the same mistake. You guys are apparently too dumb to understand the difference between beliefs and knowledge. Sorry for the insult...

But anyway, since I don't want to be accuse to dodge the question, what you would do when you can't answer, I will simply tell you that nothing existed before the Big Bang because according to the Big Bang Theory model, there was nothing before the Big Bang. It's just that simple. But now, you might be saying “Oh but how can you believe that nothing came out of nothing?”. Well WE DONT. Because the Big Bang is a concept. Something we have in our mind. It's not actual reality.

According to the model, at time 0, the universe was infinitely dense and hot. But that is NOT possible! You can't have something infinitely dense or hot, because you can't have an infinite something, it's just a concept, a way to represent what we understand. So the cause of the Big Bang was definitely NOT nothing, that's what YOU say. The cause of the Big Bang is simply unknown right now! If you want to say that God did it, fine, but don't come and say that people believe Nothing made it. Actually that's what Theists believe. You think that God created everything... but how? out of nothing!? You have no way to explain how God might have done it, and no way to justify how God came into existence, because God is the first cause... how convenient!

Hugo said...

MAKARIOS:Richard Dawkins wrote the following in his 2004 book "The Ancestor's Tale":
“The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing-is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."
Isn’t that amazing? Richard Dawkins is not only willing to lie to himself, but he is FORCED to lie to himself in order to maintain his faith in atheism. And it truly is faith in atheism because to believe that life, LIFE came from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules, which themselves had to have EVOLVED (he’s saying that gases evolved) is to believe something in the complete absence of evidence as it’s defined by the scientific method of inquiry.


HUGO: Thanks for pointing out that you can't understand what other people write. I guess I am wasting my time then... this sucks...

Anyway, NEARLY NOTHING is very different from NOTHING. But I guess it's just the same for you right? Because you don't even know that micro and macro evolution are the same so I guess it's way too much to ask you what you know about abiogenesis? Right? Because that would tell you how life started, how first molecules reproduce themselves and so on... Yes, life did come from inorganic model, and it's well understood how. I am sorry you don't know how it probably happened... too bad for you! And yes, I do say “probably”, because I am not a religious nut who pretends to have absolute knowledge... Science always look for new facts so our Theories always change. That's just how it works. Get up to date if you want to discuss such issues...

MAKARIOS:Remember, this is the same Richard Dawkins who said, "I am sceptical of ANY strongly held belief in the absence of evidence."

HUGO: I agree with him on that. And I am sure you do...

MAKARIOS:This is the same Richard Dawkins who, in the complete absence of evidence tells us that even as I type this, there is life on a billion other planets in our universe.

HUGO: Take it the other way around, what are the odds that there is no life anywhere else? Virtually zero... There are so many planets, so many different conditions, it's almost impossible for life not to have evolved somewhere else. It's just a question of numbers. But I don't see the point anyway, as we probably won't ever be able to see life on another planet during our lifetime.

MAKARIOS:I do congratulate Dawkins on accepting that everything came from literally NOTHING.

HUGO: LOL, ya right...

MAKARIOS:I Nevertheless, to say that the universe EVOLVED out of nothing is not only an incoherent and illogical statement

HUGO: Yes, it is...

MAKARIOS: but another example of atheist blind faith since once again there is absolutely no evidence to support let alone suggest that happened.

HUGO: Of course, if you say that people believe This, and then claim This to be false, you can't be wrong. The problem is that nobody claims This, you just assert that yourself. You are debating with no one but your pre-suppposition. It's kind of sad... Why don't you quote people if you want to truly address their point?

MAKARIOS:In fact there is a mass of evidence saying that the universe did not and could not come from anything because there wasn’t any Thing, nor any Place for "nothing" to evolve.
This is just another example of the fact that in order to be an atheist, you have to lie to yourself.


HUGO: Nice, you conclude with an absurd claim that Atheists lie to themselves... You know that it's quite easy to just say the same about Theists... but I don't feel the need to do so, because I can defend my points and my beliefs. I don't need to resort to Ad Hominem attacks or dishonest Quote mining. Anyway, replying to your “proof” that God exists will be a lot of fun I guess...

Hugo said...

One LAST point. And if you answer only to one of my points (because I did write a long text I admit), please reply to this one:

Do you embrace the ideology of JD who stated that YEC, Young Earth Creationists, must not be rejected right away?

i.e. Do you agree that people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old deserve to be listened to?

Rabhimself said...

It will be interesting to see his response, but given his favourite argumen for the existence of god, i suspect he has no choice but to say no - they don't deserve to be listened to.

On saying that, he does believe in the story of Noah's Ark. No, i'm not kidding, he supports JD on that matter.

Makarios said...

Citation needed.

No, it's well known enough that you can google it.

Makarios said...

Hugo - “According to atheists...”,

I could say "atheist scientists" but because their atheism taints the way they do their work (ruling out a whole class of evidence), I say atheists because that is the dominant theme.

Makarios said...

Hugo: "We don't know what caused the universe to exists."

Right, but we DO know what DIDN'T cause it. What didn’t cause it was anything natural or material because nothing natural or material existed. Right?
===========

'How did that mind do it then?'

That’s a fallacious argument. We do not need to know HOW an explanation works to know that an explanation is the right one.
================

"You think that God created everything... but how? out of nothing!?”

Yes - out of nothing. We know from science that it was out of nothing. Remember? “I will simply tell you that nothing existed before the Big Bang because according to the Big Bang Theory model,”
=============

"You think that God created everything... but how? out of nothing!?

Again, the fallacy. We don’t need to know how something works to know that it did work. Example, You go to mars and find all kinds of machinery and buildings. Do we know HOW it got there? No. Do we need to know how it got there to know than something intelligent put it there? No!

Another example. An archaeologist finds tools and cooking instruments in an area and at a level that is totally unexpected. Does he know how it got there? No. Does he need to know how it got there to know that intelligent beings put it there? No.
==========

“God is the first cause... how convenient!”

Well, I understand it`s inconvenient to your world-view but that’s just the way it is.

Makarios said...

Hugo: "how first molecules reproduce themselves and so on... Yes, life did come from inorganic model,

Are you trying to say that the first molecules were / are inorganic? Or are you just trying to ignore the most important question in biology. Like Dawkins says, "Once the vital ingredient - some kind of genetic molecule - is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow.”

Well, yes, of course. So let’s not worry ourselves with how the vital ingredient got into place. It’s only the single most important step in all of biology. Let’s just skip along to the wonders of evolution shall we?
============

Makarios said...

I'll answer your quesion if you answer mine.

How did light from stars 78 billion light years away get to earth in only 13 billion years?

Hugo said...

@Rabhimself
Wait wait, are you serious???
That would explain why he avoids the question of whether we need to rule out a 6,000 year old Earth hypothesis or not... on one hand he knows it contradicts science, but on the other, for the Ark story to be possibly true, you need alternatives...

Hugo said...

MAKARIOS:
I'll answer your quesion if you answer mine.

How did light from stars 78 billion light years away get to earth in only 13 billion years?


Such a trivial question!
Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about... It's kind of sad...

Anyway, the answer is simply that the light we see now was emitted 13 billion years ago. During that time, the universe (spacetime) continued to expand, so the object that emitted light 13 billion years ago moved away from us during all these years. The object is now obviously much much farther than 13 billion light years. 78 makes sense I guess, why not?

In other words, what we see is how the object looked like 13 billion years ago. We have no way of knowing what it looks like now. And it's the same for anything we look at... even the Sun! We see the Sun the way it was 8 minutes before, not how it is at the time you look at it.

That's all the time I have for now...

Gorth Satana said...

""This is the same Richard Dawkins who, in the complete absence of evidence tells us that even as I type this, there is life on a billion other planets in our universe."

Citation needed.

No, it's well known enough that you can google it."

I did. When I didn't find anything like that I concluded that you were either wrong or a liar. I found two statements that he believes there "might" be or that there's a "possibility" of life on other planets. Giving a citation would clear this up.

Makarios said...

My wife "cleaned" our book cases - read Moved my stuff, grrr. When I find it I'll get it for you.

Gorth Satana said...

thanks

Makarios said...

The God Delusion pp. 137-139

Gorth Satana said...

So I've read that part "The anthropic Principle: Planetary Version" (starting on the bottom of page 134)

Maybe you missed these words: "Suppose" and "if".

Gorth Satana said...

To be fair, he thinks it's likely.

Makarios said...

Hugo, for the good of mankind, phone and let Dawkins know of what you've found out. His equations don't allow him to believe that the universe expanded the equivalent of 65 billion light years in only 13 billion years.

Hugo said...

MAKARIOS:
[Dawkins'] equations don't allow him to believe that the universe expanded the equivalent of 65 billion light years in only 13 billion years.


Dawkins worked in the field of biology, not cosmology...

And apparently you did not understand my answer, but how could I expect anything else from the person who actually asked that ridicule question...

Makarios said...

I meant Hawking, and Hawking doesn't think it ridiculous. He thinks that it is a problem that needs to be resolved before BB can be accepted.

Hugo said...

MAKARIOS:
I meant Hawking, and Hawking doesn't think it ridiculous. He thinks that it is a problem that needs to be resolved before BB can be accepted.

What problem?

I answered your question properlly.
What was wrong with my answer? You seem to put it as if I had not answered; and bringing up a problem concerning the Big Bang. But I was not talking about the Big Bang, because your question did not mention the Big Bang either.

MAKARIOS:
His equations don't allow him to believe that the universe expanded the equivalent of 65 billion light years in only 13 billion years.

What equations?

But actually it does not matter so much since it's not surprising to see equations break.

Ex.: That's what happens as we get closer to the middle of a black hole, or the way the Big Bang Theory describes the start of the universe: infinitely hot, infinitely dense.

Try putting that in your equations.

Makarios said...

Anyway, the answer is simply that the light we see now was emitted 13 billion years ago. During that time, the universe (spacetime) continued to expand, so the object that emitted light 13 billion years ago moved away from us during all these years. The object is now obviously much much farther than 13 billion light years. 78 makes sense I guess, why not?"

Because the universe has not, did not, could not expand that far in such a "short" period of time.

That is the major problem that Hawking and Penrose see with BB theory. We know that the stars are 78 billion light years away but how did they get that far in such a short period of time.

Gorth Satana said...

expansion.

Gorth Satana said...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

Makarios said...

Gorth, this is a web site that tells us that there is "no sign that the universe is finite"

No sign? Gorth, even you wouldn't be that gullible.

Hugo said...

Makarios,

I invite you to look at this video series; especially regarding the example using the expanding track in the 2nd video.


BestOfScience - Faster Than The Speed Of Light (1): The Universe - Created Out Of Nothing?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxNbXjBbzEo

If you're interested, there are other videos from that user that discuss the complex issue general relativity; making it much easier to understand.

Gorth Satana said...

Makarios, universe or earth, take your pick. Is it 6 to 10 thousand years old?

Makarios said...

Why do you ask?

Hugo said...

MAKARIOS
"Why do you ask?"

I asked it too. Many times.