Total Posts:121|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How can there be no creator?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,741
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 8:19:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

Response: It is amazing. How a person can live their life, bring order and sophistication to it, only by the use of their intelligence, and conclude that the order and sophistication in the universe originates from unintelligence. Extreme, to say the least.
Schzincko
Posts: 119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 8:51:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

I don't think anything came from anything. Sure, it may be easy to think it all came from a single creator, but it's easier to think that it never began anywhere.
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 8:51:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

I don't understand how a belief in the creator avoids something coming from nothing. If you can rationalize God always existing, I can also do the same thing. Just change the word God into energy. It always existed. There fore something came something. It is on equal logical footing as god.

Now if you really want to be honest at this point it is speculation on what c a me before the universe and time, so the honest answer is I don't know.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 9:54:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

Atheists do not necessarily claim (and in fact most don't) that "something came from nothing".
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 10:44:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 9:54:27 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

Atheists do not necessarily claim (and in fact most don't) that "something came from nothing".


Some are now placing their faith in the idea that matter/energy just always existed, source unknown - or source nonexistent. In an odd sort of way, that's not too far removed from theism. Every belief system at some point rests upon certain assumptions, unless the person just says, "I don't know."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 10:45:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing?


This is a classic fallacy of theism. Theists think that if atheists don't believe in god, then they think something came from nothing. The fallacy is that theists believe that things "came from" somewhere. This question only exists in the theistic viewpoint, and they can't get past it.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 11:09:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 10:44:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:54:27 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

Atheists do not necessarily claim (and in fact most don't) that "something came from nothing".


Some are now placing their faith in the idea that matter/energy just always existed, source unknown - or source nonexistent. In an odd sort of way, that's not too far removed from theism. Every belief system at some point rests upon certain assumptions, unless the person just says, "I don't know."

Well, "I don't know" isn't invalid, and I think it's the most rational position to take at the moment.

Recent developments suggest about a dozen dimensions, at least some of which would not be bound by our constraints of things like causality, so that "problem", if you even think it to be a problem, could be removed with the progress of science.

It is quite similar to theism in some ways, but I think that just shows how useless all of the variations of the "prime mover" argument are to proving the God that Christians (and others) are trying to prove. Material things can perform the exact same functions of creation, in theory, and even if they couldn't there's no reason to suppose that matter/energy couldn't have existed indefinitely into the past.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 11:22:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 11:09:22 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 10:44:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:54:27 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

Atheists do not necessarily claim (and in fact most don't) that "something came from nothing".


Some are now placing their faith in the idea that matter/energy just always existed, source unknown - or source nonexistent. In an odd sort of way, that's not too far removed from theism. Every belief system at some point rests upon certain assumptions, unless the person just says, "I don't know."

Well, "I don't know" isn't invalid, and I think it's the most rational position to take at the moment.

Certainly. Many times I've asked an atheist, "What does the Bible teach about "x"?" The correct answer would have been, "I don't know". That would have been a valid answer. To watch them hunt and peck and google for a supposed contradiction, then copy and paste their "findings", borders on sad.

Recent developments suggest about a dozen dimensions, at least some of which would not be bound by our constraints of things like causality, so that "problem", if you even think it to be a problem, could be removed with the progress of science.

It is quite similar to theism in some ways, but I think that just shows how useless all of the variations of the "prime mover" argument are to proving the God that Christians (and others) are trying to prove. Material things can perform the exact same functions of creation, in theory, and even if they couldn't there's no reason to suppose that matter/energy couldn't have existed indefinitely into the past.

That's just it: there's no reason to suppose that matter/energy existed indefinitely into the past. Likewise, there's not reason to suppose that matter/energy could not have existed indefinitely into the past. That's at least from the point of view of science, as best I understand it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 11:22:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Substituting "God" with "Energy" is not the same thing. God is defined as an infinitely superior being that is responsible for our existence out of his own will, whereas energy is a physical phenomenon with no causal intent. I don't find it rational to believe that eternally existing energy is a better explanation from which everything came than God. The universe exudes intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency, but at the very least just unfathomable information. How could energy or absolute nothingness produce this kind of world that we live in?

I guess you could say that we're part of a dimension that was caused by another dimension following different rules but it had to start somewhere and that initial cause had to exist eternally to be the thing from which everything came. Eternally existing stuff bound by the realm of time is logically impossible.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 11:24:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 10:45:51 PM, Martley wrote:
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing?


This is a classic fallacy of theism. Theists think that if atheists don't believe in god, then they think something came from nothing. The fallacy is that theists believe that things "came from" somewhere. This question only exists in the theistic viewpoint, and they can't get past it.

Based on the cause and effect structure of the world of course I believe stuff came from somewhere. Not sure what planet you're living on lol.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 11:31:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 11:22:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Substituting "God" with "Energy" is not the same thing. God is defined as an infinitely superior being that is responsible for our existence out of his own will, whereas energy is a physical phenomenon with no causal intent. I don't find it rational to believe that eternally existing energy is a better explanation from which everything came than God. The universe exudes intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency, but at the very least just unfathomable information. How could energy or absolute nothingness produce this kind of world that we live in?


Energy doesn't equal God, but the point is that anything could have existed indefinitely into the past, in the same way that God has. So there's no reason to suppose God is required for the existence of the world as we know it.

As for your second point, any system that follows a set of unbending rules will exude some sort of "intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency" to onlookers.

As for why life would exist if there weren't an intelligent creator, I've heard two responses.

1. Asking why life would exist without an intelligent creator makes no more sense than a red rock asking how it would exist without an intelligent creator. There is no more inherent value in life, which is just a material phenomenon, than a special kind of rock or anything else material. So the fact that we happen to exist says nothing about a greater purpose, just pure chance. We're just a material phenomenon that happened due to the laws of the universe.

2. Current evidence supports a multiverse, in which case there could be a virtually infinite amount of worlds. We might be the only world that can support life. So even if you give life inherent value above material, it was inevitable that in some universe we would come about. It says nothing about an intelligent creator.

I guess you could say that we're part of a dimension that was caused by another dimension following different rules but it had to start somewhere and that initial cause had to exist eternally to be the thing from which everything came. Eternally existing stuff bound by the realm of time is logically impossible.

Well in that dimension time, in the sense we speak about it, might not exist either.

Why is something eternally existing impossible? God does it, apparently.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 12:01:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 11:31:16 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 11:22:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Substituting "God" with "Energy" is not the same thing. God is defined as an infinitely superior being that is responsible for our existence out of his own will, whereas energy is a physical phenomenon with no causal intent. I don't find it rational to believe that eternally existing energy is a better explanation from which everything came than God. The universe exudes intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency, but at the very least just unfathomable information. How could energy or absolute nothingness produce this kind of world that we live in?


Energy doesn't equal God, but the point is that anything could have existed indefinitely into the past, in the same way that God has. So there's no reason to suppose God is required for the existence of the world as we know it.

As for your second point, any system that follows a set of unbending rules will exude some sort of "intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency" to onlookers.

As for why life would exist if there weren't an intelligent creator, I've heard two responses.

1. Asking why life would exist without an intelligent creator makes no more sense than a red rock asking how it would exist without an intelligent creator. There is no more inherent value in life, which is just a material phenomenon, than a special kind of rock or anything else material. So the fact that we happen to exist says nothing about a greater purpose, just pure chance. We're just a material phenomenon that happened due to the laws of the universe.

2. Current evidence supports a multiverse, in which case there could be a virtually infinite amount of worlds. We might be the only world that can support life. So even if you give life inherent value above material, it was inevitable that in some universe we would come about. It says nothing about an intelligent creator.

I guess you could say that we're part of a dimension that was caused by another dimension following different rules but it had to start somewhere and that initial cause had to exist eternally to be the thing from which everything came. Eternally existing stuff bound by the realm of time is logically impossible.

Well in that dimension time, in the sense we speak about it, might not exist either.

Why is something eternally existing impossible? God does it, apparently.

My point was is that physical phenomena like eternally existing energy is a much poorer explanation for the initial cause because (1) all evidence points to the Big Bang marking the beginning of all time, space, and energy and (2) energy has parameters that are not capable of producing traits in the world that we observe today that I've listed previously.

My whole argument is based on the incomprehensibly intelligent natural structure of the universe and that God is not a non-rational explanation.

I'm not understanding your second point. It seems as though you're saying we merely *think* that the world exudes intelligence, complexity, interdependency, etc., because we're part of the system itself but that's the whole point. We are conscious beings. If anything, naturally being part of the system, we shouldn't be amazed at the world around us. Hypothetically, some other conscious beings might exist in their own world much less sophisticated than ours and believe that their universe is so sophisticated that it must've been created by a creator too, but there's really no reason to believe that (1) they don't have a creator anyway and (2) that this hypothetical scenario is even plausible.

Human beings have no more value than rocks?

What evidence supports a multiverse? I've read one article about uneven cosmic radiation following the Big Bang as supposed evidence of a multiverse. If anything the multiverse is an escape route theory because a transcendent first cause is necessitated from the Big Bang discovery.

Well if we accept the notion that something must exist eternally from which everything came, is a more plausible explanation a supreme being or extrapolation of a mindless physical phenomenon (that had to be created in the Big Bang in the first place) given the universe we have today?
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 1:24:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

And you believe this creator, more complex than the entire universe, came from nothing. OK
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:59:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

You make a seamless transition from querying the atheist non-belief in god(s) to placing words in their mouths: that they must therefore believe that something came from nothing. That latter does not necessarily follow from the former.

There is also a certain hypocrisy in your position. If something cannot come from nothing then this rules out a creator too. The creator must be 'something' and yet you don't likewise demand an explanation is to where it came from. Of course you will resort to saying something like "the creator has always existed". This is simply you defining the problem away in an ad-hoc manner. You can't insist that the universe cannot arise from nothing and then happily exempt a creator from the same requirement. That would be irrational.

Your talk of eternity confuses me. The universe has an age: 13.7 billion years. The scientific position is not that the universe is eternal, at least not with respect to the past.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:11:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:59:57 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

You make a seamless transition from querying the atheist non-belief in god(s) to placing words in their mouths: that they must therefore believe that something came from nothing. That latter does not necessarily follow from the former.

There is also a certain hypocrisy in your position. If something cannot come from nothing then this rules out a creator too. The creator must be 'something' and yet you don't likewise demand an explanation is to where it came from. Of course you will resort to saying something like "the creator has always existed". This is simply you defining the problem away in an ad-hoc manner. You can't insist that the universe cannot arise from nothing and then happily exempt a creator from the same requirement. That would be irrational.

Your talk of eternity confuses me. The universe has an age: 13.7 billion years. The scientific position is not that the universe is eternal, at least not with respect to the past.

Actually, it did. Something came from nothing - that is the exception to he rule - Creation itself.

The real question is whether its rational to believe that this is all naturalistic and inevitable result of random events intermixing in way that lead to this - statistically, that is highly unlikely.

The opposite? That the effort to make all this, to expend all this energy, all the effort and have forces created (the four fundamental forces of the universe) that just happen to be perfect for creating life? That begs the question of a engineer if you will.

Is there a definitive answer either way? Nope.

Both beliefs are rational in terms of pure logic. Its when one side starts saying the other is irrational that you run into issues. The denial of rationalism in your fellow humans is never quite ... rational.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:29:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 11:22:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The universe exudes intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency, but at the very least just unfathomable information.

I'll correct this statement for you.

"The Earth, after billions of years of evolution, exudes ...". I would argue the 'intelligence' and 'beauty' parts too.

Our solar system, apart from Earth, appears to be quite barren. In terms of real estate, most of the solar system is uninhabitable to us.

Similarly, the universe is mostly empty space. If you calculated the percentage volume of the universe that was matter in the form of stars and planets, it would be zero to quite a few decimal places. The universe is cold and indifferent to us. You appear to equate Earth with the universe as a whole. Bad mistake.

How could energy or absolute nothingness produce this kind of world that we live in?

It's called a phase change of state. Matter crystallized out of energy as the universe cooled. From there gravity did its work forming stars and galaxies, and the rest is history as they say.

If you want an example of how a phase change produces complexity from homogeneity, think how an intricate snowflake forms from a featureless drop of water. Is god doing it or is it a natural process following the physical laws of the universe?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:39:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:29:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/27/2014 11:22:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The universe exudes intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency, but at the very least just unfathomable information.

I'll correct this statement for you.

"The Earth, after billions of years of evolution, exudes ...". I would argue the 'intelligence' and 'beauty' parts too.

Our solar system, apart from Earth, appears to be quite barren. In terms of real estate, most of the solar system is uninhabitable to us.

Similarly, the universe is mostly empty space. If you calculated the percentage volume of the universe that was matter in the form of stars and planets, it would be zero to quite a few decimal places. The universe is cold and indifferent to us. You appear to equate Earth with the universe as a whole. Bad mistake.

How could energy or absolute nothingness produce this kind of world that we live in?

It's called a phase change of state. Matter crystallized out of energy as the universe cooled. From there gravity did its work forming stars and galaxies, and the rest is history as they say.

If you want an example of how a phase change produces complexity from homogeneity, think how an intricate snowflake forms from a featureless drop of water. Is god doing it or is it a natural process following the physical laws of the universe?

The problem there dee is the act of Creation itself. Matter did not have to arise out of energy. The most probable outcome of the Big Bang is that the of diffuse energy, because there is not enough gravity to hold in back enough to form energy. The second most probable outcome is too much gravity, and the matter crushes in and creates a bunch of black holes. That leaves ... JUST the right amount of gravity.

And the issue comes to the fore when we realize that, in the first few instances of plank time ... the VERY FIRST thing, the first of the four fundamental forces created, was gravity. The very thing that needed to be perfect was the first thing created. That certainly begs the question. Not that begging the question provides the answer, that would be fallacious, but it does give you pause as you assume that what happened was just what had to happen. It didn't need to be that way, so the question that MUST BE ASKED, is why it was the way it was.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:45:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:39:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:29:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/27/2014 11:22:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The universe exudes intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency, but at the very least just unfathomable information.

I'll correct this statement for you.

"The Earth, after billions of years of evolution, exudes ...". I would argue the 'intelligence' and 'beauty' parts too.

Our solar system, apart from Earth, appears to be quite barren. In terms of real estate, most of the solar system is uninhabitable to us.

Similarly, the universe is mostly empty space. If you calculated the percentage volume of the universe that was matter in the form of stars and planets, it would be zero to quite a few decimal places. The universe is cold and indifferent to us. You appear to equate Earth with the universe as a whole. Bad mistake.

How could energy or absolute nothingness produce this kind of world that we live in?

It's called a phase change of state. Matter crystallized out of energy as the universe cooled. From there gravity did its work forming stars and galaxies, and the rest is history as they say.

If you want an example of how a phase change produces complexity from homogeneity, think how an intricate snowflake forms from a featureless drop of water. Is god doing it or is it a natural process following the physical laws of the universe?

The problem there dee is the act of Creation itself. Matter did not have to arise out of energy. The most probable outcome of the Big Bang is that the of diffuse energy, because there is not enough gravity to hold in back enough to form energy. The second most probable outcome is too much gravity, and the matter crushes in and creates a bunch of black holes. That leaves ... JUST the right amount of gravity.

And the issue comes to the fore when we realize that, in the first few instances of plank time ... the VERY FIRST thing, the first of the four fundamental forces created, was gravity. The very thing that needed to be perfect was the first thing created. That certainly begs the question. Not that begging the question provides the answer, that would be fallacious, but it does give you pause as you assume that what happened was just what had to happen. It didn't need to be that way, so the question that MUST BE ASKED, is why it was the way it was.

The answer is it wasn't that way in any universe in which we don't exist. You see the puddle fits the hole, not the other way around.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:46:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:11:15 AM, neutral wrote:

Actually, it did. Something came from nothing - that is the exception to he rule - Creation itself.

How can you possibly know this? Isn't this just an assertion?

The real question is whether its rational to believe that this is all naturalistic and inevitable result of random events intermixing in way that lead to this - statistically, that is highly unlikely.

Statististically?

The opposite? That the effort to make all this, to expend all this energy, all the effort and have forces created (the four fundamental forces of the universe) that just happen to be perfect for creating life? That begs the question of a engineer if you will.

The only life we know of is on Earth and that has been around in cellular form for about 1 billion years. For the other 12.7 billion years we cannot make any informed comment. And yet you conclude that the 'purpose' of the universe is to produce life. We, as a species, have been around for a mere eyeblink. No, the universe is not for us. Maybe dinosaurs who at least lasted a couple of hundred million years. :-)

Both beliefs are rational in terms of pure logic. Its when one side starts saying the other is irrational that you run into issues. The denial of rationalism in your fellow humans is never quite ... rational.

Are you claiming there are no irrational people or beliefs? Amazing.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:52:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:45:31 AM, bulproof wrote:

The answer is it wasn't that way in any universe in which we don't exist. You see the puddle fits the hole, not the other way around.

Thank you, this saves me a more long-winded answer. :-)
Mr_Soundboard
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:58:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 9:54:27 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 6/27/2014 8:13:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I often hear that there is no rational reason to believe in God but actually, I don't understand how you can believe that God doesn't exist.

The amount of information in this world and in the universe is unfathomable. Even a single cell is a more advanced device that we, as the most intelligent beings on earth, can't artificially replicate. But you believe that everything that exists came from absolutely nothing? How is that rational? If not, how can anything in the physical world exist eternally in the realm of time if eternity doesn't have any sequential progression? Eternity is boundless. 1 million years in the past or future doesn't change infinity and no progression could ever occur. Nothing physical and in the realm of time could've existed eternally to be the thing from which everything came.

I just don't understand how it isn't rational to believe a creator made all of this and conversely, to believe that a creator isn't necessary is a rational belief.

Atheists do not necessarily claim (and in fact most don't) that "something came from nothing".


trust me, most atheists do claim that, the issue is that "scientists" such as Dr Krauss have changed the definition of the word nothing, something to which he himself admits.

The propaganda on display from atheists is beyond ridiculous at this stage.
"Conscience is universal, the ability to adhere to that moral thought is not"
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:05:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:45:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:39:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:29:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/27/2014 11:22:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The universe exudes intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency, but at the very least just unfathomable information.

I'll correct this statement for you.

"The Earth, after billions of years of evolution, exudes ...". I would argue the 'intelligence' and 'beauty' parts too.

Our solar system, apart from Earth, appears to be quite barren. In terms of real estate, most of the solar system is uninhabitable to us.

Similarly, the universe is mostly empty space. If you calculated the percentage volume of the universe that was matter in the form of stars and planets, it would be zero to quite a few decimal places. The universe is cold and indifferent to us. You appear to equate Earth with the universe as a whole. Bad mistake.

How could energy or absolute nothingness produce this kind of world that we live in?

It's called a phase change of state. Matter crystallized out of energy as the universe cooled. From there gravity did its work forming stars and galaxies, and the rest is history as they say.

If you want an example of how a phase change produces complexity from homogeneity, think how an intricate snowflake forms from a featureless drop of water. Is god doing it or is it a natural process following the physical laws of the universe?

The problem there dee is the act of Creation itself. Matter did not have to arise out of energy. The most probable outcome of the Big Bang is that the of diffuse energy, because there is not enough gravity to hold in back enough to form energy. The second most probable outcome is too much gravity, and the matter crushes in and creates a bunch of black holes. That leaves ... JUST the right amount of gravity.

And the issue comes to the fore when we realize that, in the first few instances of plank time ... the VERY FIRST thing, the first of the four fundamental forces created, was gravity. The very thing that needed to be perfect was the first thing created. That certainly begs the question. Not that begging the question provides the answer, that would be fallacious, but it does give you pause as you assume that what happened was just what had to happen. It didn't need to be that way, so the question that MUST BE ASKED, is why it was the way it was.

The answer is it wasn't that way in any universe in which we don't exist. You see the puddle fits the hole, not the other way around.

That makes absolutely no sense. Science already tells us it could have, and most likely should have, been different than it was. You r answer? Doesn't even make sense.

When facts disagree with atheism? Whatever pops into the head will do. No sense letting a cogent response be the answer.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:11:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:05:43 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:45:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:39:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:29:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/27/2014 11:22:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The universe exudes intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency, but at the very least just unfathomable information.

I'll correct this statement for you.

"The Earth, after billions of years of evolution, exudes ...". I would argue the 'intelligence' and 'beauty' parts too.

Our solar system, apart from Earth, appears to be quite barren. In terms of real estate, most of the solar system is uninhabitable to us.

Similarly, the universe is mostly empty space. If you calculated the percentage volume of the universe that was matter in the form of stars and planets, it would be zero to quite a few decimal places. The universe is cold and indifferent to us. You appear to equate Earth with the universe as a whole. Bad mistake.

How could energy or absolute nothingness produce this kind of world that we live in?

It's called a phase change of state. Matter crystallized out of energy as the universe cooled. From there gravity did its work forming stars and galaxies, and the rest is history as they say.

If you want an example of how a phase change produces complexity from homogeneity, think how an intricate snowflake forms from a featureless drop of water. Is god doing it or is it a natural process following the physical laws of the universe?

The problem there dee is the act of Creation itself. Matter did not have to arise out of energy. The most probable outcome of the Big Bang is that the of diffuse energy, because there is not enough gravity to hold in back enough to form energy. The second most probable outcome is too much gravity, and the matter crushes in and creates a bunch of black holes. That leaves ... JUST the right amount of gravity.

And the issue comes to the fore when we realize that, in the first few instances of plank time ... the VERY FIRST thing, the first of the four fundamental forces created, was gravity. The very thing that needed to be perfect was the first thing created. That certainly begs the question. Not that begging the question provides the answer, that would be fallacious, but it does give you pause as you assume that what happened was just what had to happen. It didn't need to be that way, so the question that MUST BE ASKED, is why it was the way it was.

The answer is it wasn't that way in any universe in which we don't exist. You see the puddle fits the hole, not the other way around.

That makes absolutely no sense. Science already tells us it could have, and most likely should have, been different than it was. You r answer? Doesn't even make sense.

When facts disagree with atheism? Whatever pops into the head will do. No sense letting a cogent response be the answer.

I'm sorry you lack the capacity to understand, but it is precisely the answer to your question. It needs no explanation it shouldn't even require much thought. It's really simple. Now have a think about it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:14:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:46:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:11:15 AM, neutral wrote:

Actually, it did. Something came from nothing - that is the exception to he rule - Creation itself.

How can you possibly know this? Isn't this just an assertion?

The real question is whether its rational to believe that this is all naturalistic and inevitable result of random events intermixing in way that lead to this - statistically, that is highly unlikely.

Statististically?

The opposite? That the effort to make all this, to expend all this energy, all the effort and have forces created (the four fundamental forces of the universe) that just happen to be perfect for creating life? That begs the question of a engineer if you will.

The only life we know of is on Earth and that has been around in cellular form for about 1 billion years. For the other 12.7 billion years we cannot make any informed comment. And yet you conclude that the 'purpose' of the universe is to produce life. We, as a species, have been around for a mere eyeblink. No, the universe is not for us. Maybe dinosaurs who at least lasted a couple of hundred million years. :-)

Both beliefs are rational in terms of pure logic. Its when one side starts saying the other is irrational that you run into issues. The denial of rationalism in your fellow humans is never quite ... rational.

Are you claiming there are no irrational people or beliefs? Amazing.

Yes, a universe creating life even once without help is statistically impossible.

https://archive.org...

The chances of it happening even once are well beyond the point of statistically impossibility. Well beyond.

I suppose that statistical analysis could be flawed, but the only real evidence you get is a few quibbles about the variables that do nothing to eliminate the improbability of life arising from energy. Energy that magically just appeared.

Try it. Take a blow torch, and using just the flame, create life.

Again, to assume its just gonna happen is not more logical than assuming God, save then when we run the math we find that engineering GREATLY increases the chances of life appearing. Engineering pre-supposed an engineer.

There are only two ways to really change the statistical probability of life out of energy. Engineering, which religious people thing, or you change the chances. The reason its so improbable is that the Big Bang is ONE event. Well, what if its one of an infinite number of events? Hence, the multiverse.

The issue is that the multiverse has no evidence. *Save some rather indefinite 'background radiation' Its certainly not a high enough bar to say that there is DEFINITELY an infinite number of universes out there.

Whereas you think science will lead to something else ... we think it will lead to God.

Its not that you are wrong, its that your assumption that every other opinion is irrational that is he issue. Science does not disprove God. Quiet the opposite. He claimed the universe was created, and it was.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:19:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:11:43 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:05:43 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:45:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:39:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:29:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/27/2014 11:22:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The universe exudes intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency, but at the very least just unfathomable information.

I'll correct this statement for you.

"The Earth, after billions of years of evolution, exudes ...". I would argue the 'intelligence' and 'beauty' parts too.

Our solar system, apart from Earth, appears to be quite barren. In terms of real estate, most of the solar system is uninhabitable to us.

Similarly, the universe is mostly empty space. If you calculated the percentage volume of the universe that was matter in the form of stars and planets, it would be zero to quite a few decimal places. The universe is cold and indifferent to us. You appear to equate Earth with the universe as a whole. Bad mistake.

How could energy or absolute nothingness produce this kind of world that we live in?

It's called a phase change of state. Matter crystallized out of energy as the universe cooled. From there gravity did its work forming stars and galaxies, and the rest is history as they say.

If you want an example of how a phase change produces complexity from homogeneity, think how an intricate snowflake forms from a featureless drop of water. Is god doing it or is it a natural process following the physical laws of the universe?

The problem there dee is the act of Creation itself. Matter did not have to arise out of energy. The most probable outcome of the Big Bang is that the of diffuse energy, because there is not enough gravity to hold in back enough to form energy. The second most probable outcome is too much gravity, and the matter crushes in and creates a bunch of black holes. That leaves ... JUST the right amount of gravity.

And the issue comes to the fore when we realize that, in the first few instances of plank time ... the VERY FIRST thing, the first of the four fundamental forces created, was gravity. The very thing that needed to be perfect was the first thing created. That certainly begs the question. Not that begging the question provides the answer, that would be fallacious, but it does give you pause as you assume that what happened was just what had to happen. It didn't need to be that way, so the question that MUST BE ASKED, is why it was the way it was.

The answer is it wasn't that way in any universe in which we don't exist. You see the puddle fits the hole, not the other way around.

That makes absolutely no sense. Science already tells us it could have, and most likely should have, been different than it was. You r answer? Doesn't even make sense.

When facts disagree with atheism? Whatever pops into the head will do. No sense letting a cogent response be the answer.

I'm sorry you lack the capacity to understand, but it is precisely the answer to your question. It needs no explanation it shouldn't even require much thought. It's really simple. Now have a think about it.

It should not require much thought, so stop being a troll and explain it. Its easy right?

Go ahead an wipe the drool from your mouth, and explain why scientific modeling has allowed us to discern that the universe SHOULD just be diffuse energy, or THEN just a bunch of black holes, but is instead perfectly balanced by gravity.

Pools of water.

And insults. We are all just too stupid to realize that your point isn't even relevant.

Please make a content point, even ONCE. Are atheists at ALL alarmed that you attract 'rationalists' like this?
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:43:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:14:42 AM, neutral wrote:

Yes, a universe creating life even once without help is statistically impossible.

https://archive.org...

The chances of it happening even once are well beyond the point of statistically impossibility. Well beyond.

It's statistically impossible because a Christian apologist wrote a book saying so? Are you serious?

Here's a hint: you might have more luck with Paul Davies. At least he has/had some respectability as a physicist making a similar anthropocentric argument.

If you want to convince anyone that you have a statistical model for any phenomenon, you had better link to a paper in a scientific journal or I will dismiss it out of hand. A random book on the web doesn't even come close. Sorry.

I suppose that statistical analysis could be flawed, but the only real evidence you get is a few quibbles about the variables that do nothing to eliminate the improbability of life arising from energy. Energy that magically just appeared.

As opposed to a creator who just magically exists?

Try it. Take a blow torch, and using just the flame, create life.

What does this statement have to do with anything? I expected something a little better from you.

Its not that you are wrong, its that your assumption that every other opinion is irrational that is he issue.

Where did I say that every other opinion is irrational?

Science does not disprove God. Quiet the opposite.

Shhhh...

He claimed the universe was created, and it was.

What???
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:53:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:19:20 AM, neutral wrote:

It should not require much thought, so stop being a troll and explain it. Its easy right?

Go ahead an wipe the drool from your mouth, and explain why scientific modeling has allowed us to discern that the universe SHOULD just be diffuse energy, or THEN just a bunch of black holes, but is instead perfectly balanced by gravity.

Pools of water.

And insults. We are all just too stupid to realize that your point isn't even relevant.

Please make a content point, even ONCE. Are atheists at ALL alarmed that you attract 'rationalists' like this?

Bulproof assumes you have read Douglas Adams:
http://rationalwiki.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 7:11:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:19:20 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:11:43 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/28/2014 6:05:43 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:45:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:39:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:29:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/27/2014 11:22:21 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The universe exudes intelligence, beauty, complexity, diversity, interdependency, but at the very least just unfathomable information.

I'll correct this statement for you.

"The Earth, after billions of years of evolution, exudes ...". I would argue the 'intelligence' and 'beauty' parts too.

Our solar system, apart from Earth, appears to be quite barren. In terms of real estate, most of the solar system is uninhabitable to us.

Similarly, the universe is mostly empty space. If you calculated the percentage volume of the universe that was matter in the form of stars and planets, it would be zero to quite a few decimal places. The universe is cold and indifferent to us. You appear to equate Earth with the universe as a whole. Bad mistake.

How could energy or absolute nothingness produce this kind of world that we live in?

It's called a phase change of state. Matter crystallized out of energy as the universe cooled. From there gravity did its work forming stars and galaxies, and the rest is history as they say.

If you want an example of how a phase change produces complexity from homogeneity, think how an intricate snowflake forms from a featureless drop of water. Is god doing it or is it a natural process following the physical laws of the universe?

The problem there dee is the act of Creation itself. Matter did not have to arise out of energy. The most probable outcome of the Big Bang is that the of diffuse energy, because there is not enough gravity to hold in back enough to form energy. The second most probable outcome is too much gravity, and the matter crushes in and creates a bunch of black holes. That leaves ... JUST the right amount of gravity.

And the issue comes to the fore when we realize that, in the first few instances of plank time ... the VERY FIRST thing, the first of the four fundamental forces created, was gravity. The very thing that needed to be perfect was the first thing created. That certainly begs the question. Not that begging the question provides the answer, that would be fallacious, but it does give you pause as you assume that what happened was just what had to happen. It didn't need to be that way, so the question that MUST BE ASKED, is why it was the way it was.

The answer is it wasn't that way in any universe in which we don't exist. You see the puddle fits the hole, not the other way around.

That makes absolutely no sense. Science already tells us it could have, and most likely should have, been different than it was. You r answer? Doesn't even make sense.

When facts disagree with atheism? Whatever pops into the head will do. No sense letting a cogent response be the answer.

I'm sorry you lack the capacity to understand, but it is precisely the answer to your question. It needs no explanation it shouldn't even require much thought. It's really simple. Now have a think about it.
Look no insults here
It should not require much thought, so stop being a troll and explain it. Its easy right?
Insult noted
Go ahead an wipe the drool from your mouth, and explain why scientific modeling has allowed us to discern that the universe SHOULD just be diffuse energy, or THEN just a bunch of black holes,
Insult noted. What scientific modelling would you if that was the case?
but is instead perfectly balanced by gravity.
Pools of water.
The puddle fits the hole not the other way around. Like I said have a think about it.
And insults. We are all just too stupid to realize that your point isn't even relevant.
You will of course notice that the only insults come from you.
Please make a content point, even ONCE. Are atheists at ALL alarmed that you attract 'rationalists' like this?
What is a content point? Do you need to be alarmingly rational to make one. Would you do it on a lathe or a mill?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 7:19:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 6:19:20 AM, neutral wrote:

Go ahead an wipe the drool from your mouth, and explain why scientific modeling has allowed us to discern that the universe SHOULD just be diffuse energy, or THEN just a bunch of black holes, but is instead perfectly balanced by gravity.

This is a classic misuse of probability/statistics. You don't work backwards from an event and then try and calculate the probability of it occurring. If a coin is showing heads after a toss, then its probability is irrelevant. It is showing heads. Its a certainty that it is heads.

In the case of the universe we have no idea of what led to its existence. You can't be talking about tuning this and tuning that when you don't have any knobs. You don't even know how many knobs there may be or what their limits would be. Probability calculations are therefore an exercise in futility.

To illustrate my first point, let me paint a scenario for you. Let's go back 50 generations and look at your ancestors from 1,000 years ago. What are the odds that they all meet at the exact moment to marry and then conceive at exactly the right time with the precise sperm and egg to produce your 49th removed grandparents. Pretty remote odds, right? Now repeat this for every generation until we get down to you. If I was doing the probability calculation, your chances of coming into existence as the exact individual that is you are infinitesimal. You should not exist according to your own probability argument. And yet here you are. How do you explain it?

The universe is. Accept the fact and move on.