Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why is belief in God such a difficult concept

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Our physical universe expanded from a zero point singularity of infinite density during the Big Bang. All space, time, and energy began to exist in this instant. There is no evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise.

The degree to which our universe caters to life is unbelievable. A multitude of narrow constants independently aligned in order to make life possible. The odds of such an occurrence by chance is greater than the amount of atoms in our galaxy.

Somehow life began. At the cellular level we've learned that all life depends on information in order to function. The chemical sequencing of base pairs ATCG in DNA encode the instructions for cell functions. The very first life must have had a specific arrangement of ATCG, and not by any chemical necessity, in order for life to have been viable at all. The specific sequencing of these base pairs arising by chance is basically impossible.

"When we take the probability of creating a single protein of left-handed amino acids (1 chance in 10^301), and figure in the maximum possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years (10^143), it will yield a probability of 1 chance in 10^158. We can conclude that the random chance of biological evolution to create a single protein anywhere in the universe over 15 billion years is essentially zero".

Fast forward. We find ourselves as conscious, intelligent, and moral beings. We live in a universe governed by natural laws. Nature exudes intelligibility and order. The universe as a whole is an interdependent and brilliantly self-contained and self-sustaining system.

We find ourselves questioning the nature of our existence by adherence to logic and reason. Logic absolutes, that are conceptual by nature, are a transcendent aspect of the physical universe. Logical absolutes are still true despite what human minds think.

Morality, or an idea of what we ought and ought not to do, is instilled in each one of us. We have a conscience that makes us aware of right from wrong. It's an innate moral sense of how we should behave. Humans intuitively know that certain things like killing or raping without necessary justification is indefinitely morally wrong. Humans have an intuitive and real sense of absolute purpose.

So all of this considered, why is belief in God such a difficult concept?

The origin of the universe points towards a transcendent cause (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, causally-able agent), such as God.

The fine-tuning of the universe is highly probable if God exists, and highly improbable if he doesn't. The fine tuning of the universe supports the premise is that an intelligent mind designed the universe with a purpose in mind.

The origin of cellular information from mind is much more coherent than cellular information arising from unembodied chance.

The existence of logical absolutes presupposes a universal, conscious, and transcendent mind.

Knowledge of objective purpose from our moral compass is only coherent if humans had a real purpose to begin with. This would only work if humans were intentionally brought into existence.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:07:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our physical universe expanded from a zero point singularity of infinite density during the Big Bang. All space, time, and energy began to exist in this instant. There is no evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise.

It's like trying to teach a stamped digital recording to say something new. NO... there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang.

Write that out 500-times, Ben...

- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
....

And the evidence which leads us to believe otherwise is the First Law of Thermodynamics - which, if it is wrong - would destabilize the entire universe. It has been showing us that 1LoT is correct for 13.7 billion years, yet you think you somehow have it beat.

Matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. Now... when you have evidence to the contrary, you'll win the next Nobel prize without a hint of competition. Until then... you're a broken record (or a skipping CD). And as you know, such devices don't think, they just repeat the same thing over and over, with no regard to it's relative accuracy.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:19:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:07:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our physical universe expanded from a zero point singularity of infinite density during the Big Bang. All space, time, and energy began to exist in this instant. There is no evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise.

It's like trying to teach a stamped digital recording to say something new. NO... there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang.

Write that out 500-times, Ben...

- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
....

And the evidence which leads us to believe otherwise is the First Law of Thermodynamics - which, if it is wrong - would destabilize the entire universe. It has been showing us that 1LoT is correct for 13.7 billion years, yet you think you somehow have it beat.

Matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. Now... when you have evidence to the contrary, you'll win the next Nobel prize without a hint of competition. Until then... you're a broken record (or a skipping CD). And as you know, such devices don't think, they just repeat the same thing over and over, with no regard to it's relative accuracy.

According to Stephen Hawking, the laws that currently govern our universe would've broken down at the singularity. He also believes that the Big Bang was the absolute beginning of time (space-time accordingly), because all events prior to the Big Bang are unevidenced and so may as well be cut out of the theory. In addition, the existence of an eternal energy causing the Big Bang by chance is a mathematical impossibility anyway. Any probability of something occurring within an eternal substance will indefinitely occur. Once this occurs, the origin of the eternal substance is quantifiable back to point 0. Hence, eternal energy could not have caused the Big Bang by chance because it's mathematicatlly impossible anyway.
http://www.hawking.org.uk...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:26:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


The degree to which our universe caters to life is unbelievable.
With more than 99.999% of the known universe being instantly lethal to all known forms of life, it's unbelievably scarce. If it was intended as an incubator for life, it's a horrible failure. It's more lethal to life than Lysol spray is to germs.

A multitude of narrow constants independently aligned in order to make life possible.
Not true at all. You're acting as though the design for life existed before the universe, and the universe was constructed to match that design. Puddles don't conform to the shape of the water within them. The water conforms to the depression in the ground. Life conforms to the environment, the environment doesn't conform to the forms of life.

The odds of such an occurrence by chance is greater than the amount of atoms in our galaxy.
Once again, it's picking one potential universe, from a large number of potential universes. It's no less likely than picking a card from a deck with 10^121 cards. No matter how many cards are in the deck, picking one at random can still be done with certainty. And no matter which you pick, it will be the only one exactly like that in the whole deck. It's a fallacious argument called the "fine-tuning argument". It's intended to fluster people who can't grasp numbers above their own IQ.

No matter which card you pick, the argument becomes - the odds against picking that card was 10^121 to 1. IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHANCE! But those are the odds for every single card in the deck. And the odds of picking A CARD, were 1 to 1.

Somehow life began.
Which is explained by abiogenesis.

At the cellular level we've learned that all life depends on information in order to function.
Physical properties are information. Name anything physical which has no properties.

The chemical sequencing of base pairs ATCG in DNA encode the instructions for cell functions.
You're talking about very advanced cells. The cell is the most advanced, most evolved life form known. On Earth it has been working toward it's current form for at least 3.5 billion years. It's absurd to suggest that early proto-cells and the actual cells which evolved from those would be anything like the advanced complex cells found today.

The very first life must have had a specific arrangement of ATCG, and not by any chemical necessity, in order for life to have been viable at all.
That's pure ignorance. Prior to DNA, cells likely used RNA. Prior to that, TNA. And prior to that, they may have had no specific "blueprint" passed from parent to child. Remember, cells reproduce through mitosis and mitosis has been demonstrated in little droplets of chemicals in a water base. And this can happen with as few as 4 or 5 chemicals in that droplet. No membrane, no nucleus, no mitochondria, no organelles of any kind... just chemicals reacting to their environment.

Jump forward to 6-minutes in the video to witness what simple droplets of chemicals can do. They can mimic nearly every property of life.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:39:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The existence of logical absolutes presupposes a universal, conscious, and transcendent mind.

Can God exist and not exist at the same time?
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:39:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What?? You might want to re frame the question. As most people on earth believe in a higher power, or something greater than themselves.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
dee-em
Posts: 6,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:41:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our physical universe expanded from a zero point singularity of infinite density during the Big Bang.

No, that is conjecture about what might have preceded the Big Bang. The equations break down before a singularity is reached.

All space, time, and energy began to exist in this instant. There is no evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise.

Space and time began. The energy was already there. Hence the near infinite pressure and temperature you mentioned above.

The degree to which our universe caters to life is unbelievable.

You mean how there is only life on one planet out of eight (and dozens of moons) in our solar system and it is the only one harbouring life that we know of in a galaxy of 300 billion stars? You call that catering for life? Lol.

A multitude of narrow constants independently aligned in order to make life possible. The odds of such an occurrence by chance is greater than the amount of atoms in our galaxy.

Puddle, meet hole.

Somehow life began. At the cellular level we've learned that all life depends on information in order to function. The chemical sequencing of base pairs ATCG in DNA encode the instructions for cell functions. The very first life must have had a specific arrangement of ATCG, and not by any chemical necessity, in order for life to have been viable at all. The specific sequencing of these base pairs arising by chance is basically impossible.

Not true, but you should be posting this in Science not Religion if you want a proper refutation.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

"When we take the probability of creating a single protein of left-handed amino acids (1 chance in 10^301), and figure in the maximum possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years (10^143), it will yield a probability of 1 chance in 10^158. We can conclude that the random chance of biological evolution to create a single protein anywhere in the universe over 15 billion years is essentially zero".

See above link. Calculation based on false premises.

Fast forward. We find ourselves as conscious, intelligent, and moral beings. We live in a universe governed by natural laws. Nature exudes intelligibility and order. The universe as a whole is an interdependent and brilliantly self-contained and self-sustaining system.

I don't know about brilliantly self-sustaining since the universe is in a runaway expansion and an eventual heat death, but carry on.

We find ourselves questioning the nature of our existence by adherence to logic and reason. Logic absolutes, that are conceptual by nature, are a transcendent aspect of the physical universe. Logical absolutes are still true despite what human minds think.

Morality, or an idea of what we ought and ought not to do, is instilled in each one of us. We have a conscience that makes us aware of right from wrong. It's an innate moral sense of how we should behave. Humans intuitively know that certain things like killing or raping without necessary justification is indefinitely morally wrong. Humans have an intuitive and real sense of absolute purpose.

BS. Have you ever read "Lord of the Flies"? I suggest you do. Morality is instilled in us by our parents, our teachers and our society in general.

So all of this considered, why is belief in God such a difficult concept?

Where did God come from? Non sequitur.

The origin of the universe points towards a transcendent cause (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, causally-able agent), such as God.

You can't have a cause without time. Fail.

The fine-tuning of the universe is highly probable if God exists, and highly improbable if he doesn't. The fine tuning of the universe supports the premise is that an intelligent mind designed the universe with a purpose in mind.

Bare assertions.

The origin of cellular information from mind is much more coherent than cellular information arising from unembodied chance.

Another bare assertion.

The existence of logical absolutes presupposes a universal, conscious, and transcendent mind.

Non sequitur.

Knowledge of objective purpose from our moral compass is only coherent if humans had a real purpose to begin with. This would only work if humans were intentionally brought into existence.

Get real. Humans are an accidental occurrence nearly 14 billion years after the Big Bang. Without the meteor which wiped out the dinosaurs we wouldn't be here at all and the universe could not care less.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:42:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:19:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:07:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our physical universe expanded from a zero point singularity of infinite density during the Big Bang. All space, time, and energy began to exist in this instant. There is no evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise.

It's like trying to teach a stamped digital recording to say something new. NO... there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang.

Write that out 500-times, Ben...

- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
....

And the evidence which leads us to believe otherwise is the First Law of Thermodynamics - which, if it is wrong - would destabilize the entire universe. It has been showing us that 1LoT is correct for 13.7 billion years, yet you think you somehow have it beat.

Matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. Now... when you have evidence to the contrary, you'll win the next Nobel prize without a hint of competition. Until then... you're a broken record (or a skipping CD). And as you know, such devices don't think, they just repeat the same thing over and over, with no regard to it's relative accuracy.

According to Stephen Hawking, the laws that currently govern our universe would've broken down at the singularity. He also believes that the Big Bang was the absolute beginning of time (space-time accordingly), because all events prior to the Big Bang are unevidenced and so may as well be cut out of the theory. In addition, the existence of an eternal energy causing the Big Bang by chance is a mathematical impossibility anyway. Any probability of something occurring within an eternal substance will indefinitely occur. Once this occurs, the origin of the eternal substance is quantifiable back to point 0. Hence, eternal energy could not have caused the Big Bang by chance because it's mathematicatlly impossible anyway.
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

This demonstrates that you don't understand what Hawking is saying. Let's start with the reality that Stephen Hawking is an atheist. He doesn't believe in any intelligent creator of the universe. Yet you're attempting to prostitute his ideas to support a conclusion he does not support.

Yes, he believes that big-bang was the beginning of space-time, but that doesn't mean it was the beginning of space, or the beginning of time. If that confuses you, the mixing and baking is the beginning of a cake. It's not the beginning of flour, water, milk, eggs, baking powder or any of the other components which go into that cake.

As far as the current laws breaking down at the point of big-bang, do you understand what that means? It doesn't mean we can simply poof matter/energy up out of nothing. It means we can't trace the events step-by-step, because as we move back through the events of big-bang, we begin losing the ability to calculate the previous event.

When you write things like, "Any probability of something occurring within an eternal substance will indefinitely occur.", you're proclaiming that you don't understand what you're saying. If you can't put it in English phrases which actually make sense, you're just trying to appear as though you understand something which you clearly don't understand. There is absolutely ZERO probability against the eternal existence of energy. Energy exist. Energy can't be created. At that point, you're done... whether you like it or not.

That article simply does not support you. It never says anything about "indefinitely occur", or "eternal substances", "mathematical impossibilities". You're presenting a link to Hawking's ideas, as though they support your claims. But the reality is, nothing he says in that article supports your claims.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:42:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:39:51 PM, headphonegut wrote:
What?? You might want to re frame the question. As most people on earth believe in a higher power, or something greater than themselves.

And not so very long ago all the people who were aware of volcanoes considered them to be angry gods. Go figure.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:43:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:42:42 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:39:51 PM, headphonegut wrote:
What?? You might want to re frame the question. As most people on earth believe in a higher power, or something greater than themselves.

And not so very long ago all the people who were aware of volcanoes considered them to be angry gods. Go figure.

I don't get what you're trying to say here.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:46:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our physical universe expanded from a zero point singularity of infinite density during the Big Bang. All space, time, and energy began to exist in this instant. There is no evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise.

The degree to which our universe caters to life is unbelievable. A multitude of narrow constants independently aligned in order to make life possible. The odds of such an occurrence by chance is greater than the amount of atoms in our galaxy.

Somehow life began. At the cellular level we've learned that all life depends on information in order to function. The chemical sequencing of base pairs ATCG in DNA encode the instructions for cell functions. The very first life must have had a specific arrangement of ATCG, and not by any chemical necessity, in order for life to have been viable at all. The specific sequencing of these base pairs arising by chance is basically impossible.

"When we take the probability of creating a single protein of left-handed amino acids (1 chance in 10^301), and figure in the maximum possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years (10^143), it will yield a probability of 1 chance in 10^158. We can conclude that the random chance of biological evolution to create a single protein anywhere in the universe over 15 billion years is essentially zero".

Fast forward. We find ourselves as conscious, intelligent, and moral beings. We live in a universe governed by natural laws. Nature exudes intelligibility and order. The universe as a whole is an interdependent and brilliantly self-contained and self-sustaining system.

We find ourselves questioning the nature of our existence by adherence to logic and reason. Logic absolutes, that are conceptual by nature, are a transcendent aspect of the physical universe. Logical absolutes are still true despite what human minds think.

Morality, or an idea of what we ought and ought not to do, is instilled in each one of us. We have a conscience that makes us aware of right from wrong. It's an innate moral sense of how we should behave. Humans intuitively know that certain things like killing or raping without necessary justification is indefinitely morally wrong. Humans have an intuitive and real sense of absolute purpose.

So all of this considered, why is belief in God such a difficult concept?

The origin of the universe points towards a transcendent cause (spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, causally-able agent), such as God.

The fine-tuning of the universe is highly probable if God exists, and highly improbable if he doesn't. The fine tuning of the universe supports the premise is that an intelligent mind designed the universe with a purpose in mind.

The origin of cellular information from mind is much more coherent than cellular information arising from unembodied chance.

The existence of logical absolutes presupposes a universal, conscious, and transcendent mind.

Knowledge of objective purpose from our moral compass is only coherent if humans had a real purpose to begin with. This would only work if humans were intentionally brought into existence.

hmmm you sound frustrated Ben. I'd suggest taking a break from the religion forum. No one is going to change their beliefs unless they are ready to. We just keep letting them know we are willing to tell them and be as patient as we can. I hope you can keep hope.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:53:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:26:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


The degree to which our universe caters to life is unbelievable.
With more than 99.999% of the known universe being instantly lethal to all known forms of life, it's unbelievably scarce. If it was intended as an incubator for life, it's a horrible failure. It's more lethal to life than Lysol spray is to germs.

We're talking about the fundamental *possibility* of any life. Without fine-tuned and independent constants aligning as they did, 100% of the universe would be impossible for life.

A multitude of narrow constants independently aligned in order to make life possible.
Not true at all. You're acting as though the design for life existed before the universe, and the universe was constructed to match that design. Puddles don't conform to the shape of the water within them. The water conforms to the depression in the ground. Life conforms to the environment, the environment doesn't conform to the forms of life.

Again, we're talking about just the sheer possibility of life at all given by independently aligned constants in nature.

The odds of such an occurrence by chance is greater than the amount of atoms in our galaxy.
Once again, it's picking one potential universe, from a large number of potential universes. It's no less likely than picking a card from a deck with 10^121 cards. No matter how many cards are in the deck, picking one at random can still be done with certainty. And no matter which you pick, it will be the only one exactly like that in the whole deck. It's a fallacious argument called the "fine-tuning argument". It's intended to fluster people who can't grasp numbers above their own IQ.

Only one potential universe allowed for the possibility of life within those "10^121" chances (the actual chances are *exponentially* larger than that from what we already know). Just as randomly re-assembling rocket-trajectory software code would offer a multitude of other possible character sequences despite only one possibility being a specific functional code.

No matter which card you pick, the argument becomes - the odds against picking that card was 10^121 to 1. IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHANCE! But those are the odds for every single card in the deck. And the odds of picking A CARD, were 1 to 1.

Somehow life began.
Which is explained by abiogenesis.

Hardly. The scientists that came up with the theory had no inkling that DNA even existed and that it contained the necessary information for this process to have ever occurred in the first place.

At the cellular level we've learned that all life depends on information in order to function.
Physical properties are information. Name anything physical which has no properties.

So all physical properties aren't possibly expressed without information. What does this say about an origin of the universe from mind vs an origin of the universe from some unembodied process?

The chemical sequencing of base pairs ATCG in DNA encode the instructions for cell functions.
You're talking about very advanced cells. The cell is the most advanced, most evolved life form known. On Earth it has been working toward it's current form for at least 3.5 billion years. It's absurd to suggest that early proto-cells and the actual cells which evolved from those would be anything like the advanced complex cells found today.

Again, there is no natural selection explanation for the specific sequencing of ATCG that was present in original DNA.

The very first life must have had a specific arrangement of ATCG, and not by any chemical necessity, in order for life to have been viable at all.
That's pure ignorance. Prior to DNA, cells likely used RNA. Prior to that, TNA. And prior to that, they may have had no specific "blueprint" passed from parent to child. Remember, cells reproduce through mitosis and mitosis has been demonstrated in little droplets of chemicals in a water base. And this can happen with as few as 4 or 5 chemicals in that droplet. No membrane, no nucleus, no mitochondria, no organelles of any kind... just chemicals reacting to their environment.

So answer me this: is the specific sequencing of ATCG in DNA due to any natural process acting on natural selection?

Jump forward to 6-minutes in the video to witness what simple droplets of chemicals can do. They can mimic nearly every property of life.
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:03:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:53:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:26:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


The degree to which our universe caters to life is unbelievable.
With more than 99.999% of the known universe being instantly lethal to all known forms of life, it's unbelievably scarce. If it was intended as an incubator for life, it's a horrible failure. It's more lethal to life than Lysol spray is to germs.

We're talking about the fundamental *possibility* of any life. Without fine-tuned and independent constants aligning as they did, 100% of the universe would be impossible for life.

A multitude of narrow constants independently aligned in order to make life possible.
Not true at all. You're acting as though the design for life existed before the universe, and the universe was constructed to match that design. Puddles don't conform to the shape of the water within them. The water conforms to the depression in the ground. Life conforms to the environment, the environment doesn't conform to the forms of life.

Again, we're talking about just the sheer possibility of life at all given by independently aligned constants in nature.

The odds of such an occurrence by chance is greater than the amount of atoms in our galaxy.
Once again, it's picking one potential universe, from a large number of potential universes. It's no less likely than picking a card from a deck with 10^121 cards. No matter how many cards are in the deck, picking one at random can still be done with certainty. And no matter which you pick, it will be the only one exactly like that in the whole deck. It's a fallacious argument called the "fine-tuning argument". It's intended to fluster people who can't grasp numbers above their own IQ.

Only one potential universe allowed for the possibility of life within those "10^121" chances (the actual chances are *exponentially* larger than that from what we already know). Just as randomly re-assembling rocket-trajectory software code would offer a multitude of other possible character sequences despite only one possibility being a specific functional code.

No matter which card you pick, the argument becomes - the odds against picking that card was 10^121 to 1. IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHANCE! But those are the odds for every single card in the deck. And the odds of picking A CARD, were 1 to 1.

Somehow life began.
Which is explained by abiogenesis.

Hardly. The scientists that came up with the theory had no inkling that DNA even existed and that it contained the necessary information for this process to have ever occurred in the first place.

At the cellular level we've learned that all life depends on information in order to function.
Physical properties are information. Name anything physical which has no properties.

So all physical properties aren't possibly expressed without information. What does this say about an origin of the universe from mind vs an origin of the universe from some unembodied process?

The chemical sequencing of base pairs ATCG in DNA encode the instructions for cell functions.
You're talking about very advanced cells. The cell is the most advanced, most evolved life form known. On Earth it has been working toward it's current form for at least 3.5 billion years. It's absurd to suggest that early proto-cells and the actual cells which evolved from those would be anything like the advanced complex cells found today.

Again, there is no natural selection explanation for the specific sequencing of ATCG that was present in original DNA.

The very first life must have had a specific arrangement of ATCG, and not by any chemical necessity, in order for life to have been viable at all.
That's pure ignorance. Prior to DNA, cells likely used RNA. Prior to that, TNA. And prior to that, they may have had no specific "blueprint" passed from parent to child. Remember, cells reproduce through mitosis and mitosis has been demonstrated in little droplets of chemicals in a water base. And this can happen with as few as 4 or 5 chemicals in that droplet. No membrane, no nucleus, no mitochondria, no organelles of any kind... just chemicals reacting to their environment.

So answer me this: is the specific sequencing of ATCG in DNA due to any natural process acting on natural selection?

Jump forward to 6-minutes in the video to witness what simple droplets of chemicals can do. They can mimic nearly every property of life.

Where do you get this stuff from
Only one potential universe allowed for the possibility of life

Says you, who is aware of one pufteenth of only one universe.
Yeah I'll believe you................NOT.

The hole doesn't conform to the puddle.
You are capable of posing this nonsense because you are alive, not because the universe was created for you.

If you ever get an important machine fine tuned enough that it gives a 0.01% chance of working correctly, sack your fine tuner.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:05:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:07:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our physical universe expanded from a zero point singularity of infinite density during the Big Bang. All space, time, and energy began to exist in this instant. There is no evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise.

It's like trying to teach a stamped digital recording to say something new. NO... there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang.

Write that out 500-times, Ben...

- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
....

And the evidence which leads us to believe otherwise is the First Law of Thermodynamics - which, if it is wrong - would destabilize the entire universe. It has been showing us that 1LoT is correct for 13.7 billion years, yet you think you somehow have it beat.

Matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. Now... when you have evidence to the contrary, you'll win the next Nobel prize without a hint of competition. Until then... you're a broken record (or a skipping CD). And as you know, such devices don't think, they just repeat the same thing over and over, with no regard to it's relative accuracy.

+1

over and over and over and over....
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:06:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:42:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:19:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:07:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our physical universe expanded from a zero point singularity of infinite density during the Big Bang. All space, time, and energy began to exist in this instant. There is no evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise.

It's like trying to teach a stamped digital recording to say something new. NO... there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang.

Write that out 500-times, Ben...

- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
....

And the evidence which leads us to believe otherwise is the First Law of Thermodynamics - which, if it is wrong - would destabilize the entire universe. It has been showing us that 1LoT is correct for 13.7 billion years, yet you think you somehow have it beat.

Matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. Now... when you have evidence to the contrary, you'll win the next Nobel prize without a hint of competition. Until then... you're a broken record (or a skipping CD). And as you know, such devices don't think, they just repeat the same thing over and over, with no regard to it's relative accuracy.

According to Stephen Hawking, the laws that currently govern our universe would've broken down at the singularity. He also believes that the Big Bang was the absolute beginning of time (space-time accordingly), because all events prior to the Big Bang are unevidenced and so may as well be cut out of the theory. In addition, the existence of an eternal energy causing the Big Bang by chance is a mathematical impossibility anyway. Any probability of something occurring within an eternal substance will indefinitely occur. Once this occurs, the origin of the eternal substance is quantifiable back to point 0. Hence, eternal energy could not have caused the Big Bang by chance because it's mathematicatlly impossible anyway.
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

This demonstrates that you don't understand what Hawking is saying. Let's start with the reality that Stephen Hawking is an atheist. He doesn't believe in any intelligent creator of the universe. Yet you're attempting to prostitute his ideas to support a conclusion he does not support.

I can use his conclusions however I like. If his conclusions happen to support the existence of God, that's just an unintended application of his findings.

Yes, he believes that big-bang was the beginning of space-time, but that doesn't mean it was the beginning of space, or the beginning of time. If that confuses you, the mixing and baking is the beginning of a cake. It's not the beginning of flour, water, milk, eggs, baking powder or any of the other components which go into that cake.

Bull. He specifically said that we can "cut out" events prior to the Big Bang because they are unknowable. There's no way that Hawking would conclude that something physical pre-existing the Big Bang in absence of space-time. He specifically said that the Big Bang was the beginning of this.

As far as the current laws breaking down at the point of big-bang, do you understand what that means? It doesn't mean we can simply poof matter/energy up out of nothing. It means we can't trace the events step-by-step, because as we move back through the events of big-bang, we begin losing the ability to calculate the previous event.

It means that the first law doesn't hold anymore. Your appeal to the first law for the eternal existence of energy goes out the window at this point. Even if you did appeal to laws that currently operate within our universe, it's still a mathematical possibility.

When you write things like, "Any probability of something occurring within an eternal substance will indefinitely occur.", you're proclaiming that you don't understand what you're saying. If you can't put it in English phrases which actually make sense, you're just trying to appear as though you understand something which you clearly don't understand. There is absolutely ZERO probability against the eternal existence of energy. Energy exist. Energy can't be created. At that point, you're done... whether you like it or not.

That is the most succinct way I can explain it and I understand exactly what I'm saying. Ask a math professor if my argument is valid and have him explain it to you in further detail.

That article simply does not support you. It never says anything about "indefinitely occur", or "eternal substances", "mathematical impossibilities". You're presenting a link to Hawking's ideas, as though they support your claims. But the reality is, nothing he says in that article supports your claims.

He clearly supports that (1) the physical universe had an absolute beginning and (2) there is no reason to believe that anything pre-existed this beginning.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:15:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:53:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:26:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:


With more than 99.999% of the known universe being instantly lethal to all known forms of life, it's unbelievably scarce. If it was intended as an incubator for life, it's a horrible failure. It's more lethal to life than Lysol spray is to germs.

We're talking about the fundamental *possibility* of any life. Without fine-tuned and independent constants aligning as they did, 100% of the universe would be impossible for life.
First point - impossible for life "AS WE KNOW IT".
Second point - life is not the measure of success for a universe. Our universe doesn't allow for cold fusion. If another configuration did, would that be a "better universe"? You're alive. So it's expected that you might hold the simplistic idea that a universe which supports life is "better" than one that doesn't. But that's from your view - the tiny residue of chemical reactions which forms and replicates, not any universal or objective view. No matter which set of parameters formed with the universe, it would be unique unto itself. Pointing to the uniqueness of this universe and claiming it must have been planned is to ignore the unique traits of every other potential universe.

If you throw a rock into a windy sky and it lands right THERE! And it didn't land in any of the other potential "theres", does that mean there was intent behind the point where the rock landed? That's all you're doing. You're pointing out that this universe is special because it's unique, and ignoring that every other potential outcome would have been equally unique.


Not true at all. You're acting as though the design for life existed before the universe, and the universe was constructed to match that design. Puddles don't conform to the shape of the water within them. The water conforms to the depression in the ground. Life conforms to the environment, the environment doesn't conform to the forms of life.

Again, we're talking about just the sheer possibility of life at all given by independently aligned constants in nature.
Not true. You're talking about life as we know it, which is the only life we can talk about with authority. But what about all of the forms of life we don't know? NASA is currently working on the problem of recognizing life if we find it on other planets. You're suggesting that life on this universe, is the only potential form of life. You don't know that, nor does anyone else. And the bottom line remains - this universe is no more or less unique than any other potential universe. It's not special no matter how much you wish to assert that it is. Every universe would be different and would support various properties only available in a narrow band of the sum total potential universes.


Once again, it's picking one potential universe, from a large number of potential universes. It's no less likely than picking a card from a deck with 10^121 cards. No matter how many cards are in the deck, picking one at random can still be done with certainty. And no matter which you pick, it will be the only one exactly like that in the whole deck. It's a fallacious argument called the "fine-tuning argument". It's intended to fluster people who can't grasp numbers above their own IQ.

Only one potential universe allowed for the possibility of life within those "10^121" chances (the actual chances are *exponentially* larger than that from what we already know).
That's pure bullcrap, Ben. Only one allows for the possibility of the life exactly as it formed in THIS UNIVERSE. There is no way to say what kind of life might have evolved on universes which didn't coalesce out of big-bang. But the assertion is that it's likely a narrow band of parameters, not just one specific possible universe.

Just as randomly re-assembling rocket-trajectory software code would offer a multitude of other possible character sequences despite only one possibility being a specific functional code.
Nothing about the formation of properties in a universe is "random". How can you function as an adult and not realize that the four fundamental forces of nature interact? Every property of the universe interacts with every other property. And as a universe coalesces, that interaction causes a balance. None of the parameters form independently.

No matter which card you pick, the argument becomes - the odds against picking that card was 10^121 to 1. IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHANCE! But those are the odds for every single card in the deck. And the odds of picking A CARD, were 1 to 1.


Which is explained by abiogenesis.

Hardly. The scientists that came up with the theory had no inkling that DNA even existed and that it contained the necessary information for this process to have ever occurred in the first place.
Watch the video Ben. I've posted it to you at least half a dozen times. So before you shoot you mouth off anymore - exposing your inexcusable ignorance - watch the damned video. Then come back and apologize. Abiogenesis has NOTHING TO DO with DNA! Get your head out of a cell with 3.5-billion years, and start THINKING in terms of proto-cells. I guess we could never develop a wrist watch because at the time they were created, we didn't have access to the integrated circuits they commonly contain today. Think on realistic terms.


Physical properties are information. Name anything physical which has no properties.

So all physical properties aren't possibly expressed without information.
They ARE information. What part of that is bypassing your cognitive notice?

What does this say about an origin of the universe from mind vs an origin of the universe from some unembodied process?
The mind is a manifestation of a brain. A brain is a physical organ, operating on chemistry. It cannot exist without an environment... without the universe.


You're talking about very advanced cells. The cell is the most advanced, most evolved life form known. On Earth it has been working toward it's current form for at least 3.5 billion years. It's absurd to suggest that early proto-cells and the actual cells which evolved from those would be anything like the advanced complex cells found today.

Again, there is no natural selection explanation for the specific sequencing of ATCG that was present in original DNA.
Like Hell there isn't! DNA allowed the beneficial genetic traits to be passed in extreme detail - to offspring. It also facilitated sexual reproduction, expanding the pool of variation.

That's pure ignorance. Prior to DNA, cells likely used RNA. Prior to that, TNA. And prior to that, they may have had no specific "blueprint" passed from parent to child. Remember, cells reproduce through mitosis and mitosis has been demonstrated in little droplets of chemicals in a water base. And this can happen with as few as 4 or 5 chemicals in that droplet. No membrane, no nucleus, no mitochondria, no organelles of any kind... just chemicals reacting to their environment.

So answer me this: is the specific sequencing of ATCG in DNA due to any natural process acting on natural selection?
Natural selection IS a natural process. And the sequencing isn't specific. It's specific within an individual, and a biological lineage, but varies across a variety of species.

Jump forward to 6-minutes in the video to witness what simple droplets of chemicals can do. They can mimic nearly every property of life.
WATCH THE VIDEO and stop making assertions that it clearly refutes.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:25:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wow. This has been a pretty interesting discussion. Just wish I could understand more than 20% of it. I can see what I'll be researching for the next few days ... or weeks.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Fly
Posts: 2,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:28:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are you ashamed to bring back your "Big Bang is proof God exists" thread or something? What's with the endless threads on the same subject? It is not the most honest or constructive way to go about exploring your ideas, but it appears to be your MO...

Anyway, belief in God is not at all a difficult concept. Even a child can do it-- and most do, who are raised to believe. But there comes a point in life where it is time to put away childish things and become an adult-- a lesson from the Good Book, ironically.

Also, using a god as a final answer in scientific inquiry stifles curiosity and the motivation to investigate further, among other problems:

- How did the universe come about? God.
- How did life originate? God.
- How does lightning happen? God.
- How are mountains made? God.
- Why do we feel pain? God.

And one gets the idea...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:32:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:07:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Our physical universe expanded from a zero point singularity of infinite density during the Big Bang. All space, time, and energy began to exist in this instant. There is no evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise.

It's like trying to teach a stamped digital recording to say something new. NO... there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang.

Write that out 500-times, Ben...

- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
- "there is no assertion that energy began to exist at the point of big-bang."
....

And the evidence which leads us to believe otherwise is the First Law of Thermodynamics - which, if it is wrong - would destabilize the entire universe. It has been showing us that 1LoT is correct for 13.7 billion years, yet you think you somehow have it beat.

Matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. Now... when you have evidence to the contrary, you'll win the next Nobel prize without a hint of competition. Until then... you're a broken record (or a skipping CD). And as you know, such devices don't think, they just repeat the same thing over and over, with no regard to it's relative accuracy.

Matter and energy cannot be created unless you are God. What you are saying is evidence of life emerging from non-life by chance is clearly shown to be mathematically impossible as the odds are far too overwhelmingly against it. The proof of God is His judgement against your sin, which is executed in Hell if you don't get saved from it. What you call "relative accuracy" while you believe in chance as the explanation for life is nonsense.

God created the laws of physics which govern all of creation. Entropy increases, all systems break down......unless the system is perfect like it was when God created it.

You are believing you know things that you cannot know. Your "relative accuracy" is only relatively accurate in asserting that you are as good as a dead man talking.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:34:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry I cut the intro to make the reply, but I think I can give you the short answer:

The statistical probabaility of life occuring is:

guaranteed.

Now, before this gets shot down or called on, hear me out.

We don't know jack squat about 14 billionish years ago with any real degree of certainty. We know we are hurling through space, that some where long the line (9 trillion years?) heat death will occur, and from there, another best guess. Now, when you say the odds of something are astronomical to one: so what. We don't know how many times the cycle of crunch to bang has occured. This very well may be the 507,3453,495,094th time the crunch to bang has occured, resulting in us, 13ish billion years into the cycle.

My question to you is this:
If a monkey, typing into infinity will eventually give you War and Peace, eventually, how is life any different?

More over, do we as humans really have an objective scale to say 'Well, it happened so fast!" on the matter of the number of BILLIONS of years that the Earth has been spinning, not even touching on how many times the Crunch to Bang might have occured before this particular cycle?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:37:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is right out of the link YOU provided in asserting that Hawking supports your fallacious ideas about the universe having a beginning out of nothing.

- "The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Read that, Ben. Read it as many times as you need to. Do you not grasp the fact that he's talking about the universe before big-bang? So how does that fit with the universe arising though big-bang, out of nothing? It doesn't, does it. Be honest with yourself.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:40:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 12:28:23 AM, Fly wrote:
Are you ashamed to bring back your "Big Bang is proof God exists" thread or something? What's with the endless threads on the same subject? It is not the most honest or constructive way to go about exploring your ideas, but it appears to be your MO...

That's a straw man of my position. My postion has always been that the Big Bang evidences has a transcendent cause. If you cared to read the OP in its entirety you'd see a multitude of arguments presented in addition to this. If you're getting weary of me creating topics on God's existence in the religion forum perhaps you shouldn't open my topics.

Anyway, belief in God is not at all a difficult concept. Even a child can do it-- and most do, who are raised to believe. But there comes a point in life where it is time to put away childish things and become an adult-- a lesson from the Good Book, ironically.

Try addressing the arguments if you want to engage in discussion.

Also, using a god as a final answer in scientific inquiry stifles curiosity and the motivation to investigate further, among other problems:

- How did the universe come about? God.
- How did life originate? God.
- How does lightning happen? God.
- How are mountains made? God.
- Why do we feel pain? God.

And one gets the idea...

What does the evidence show? That's all that matters.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:43:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 12:37:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is right out of the link YOU provided in asserting that Hawking supports your fallacious ideas about the universe having a beginning out of nothing.

- "The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Read that, Ben. Read it as many times as you need to. Do you not grasp the fact that he's talking about the universe before big-bang? So how does that fit with the universe arising though big-bang, out of nothing? It doesn't, does it. Be honest with yourself.

How does this in any way, shape, or form support the existence of anything pre-existing the Big Bang?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:49:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You need to read the article you linked, Ben. It totally refutes everything you've presented here. It talks about the universe before big-bang, and about events before big-bang. It's trying to explain that one cannot know anything of the events before big-bang, so it makes no sense to include them in the theory. That doesn't mean they didn't happen, or that the universe or time didn't exist. It's just saying we can't know anything about them, and that it's futile to talk about events of which you can know virtually nothing.

If you'd actually read these articles instead of scanning them for what you want them to say, you might understand what they're saying, and understand what they don't support. They don't support your assertions.

The article clearly states that events before big-bang are not defined because there is no way to measure what happened in those events. And that THIS is what is meant by saying that time began with big-bang. It's not saying that time didn't actually exist before big-bang, it's just saying that what happened in time before big-bang cannot be determined, and therefore, cannot be spoken of intelligently. Read the article yourself instead of just posting it in a false confidence that it supports you. It soundly refutes you.

In fact, just read the first sentence in the 6th paragraph (not including the preface to the article), where it says, "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences...". That one sentence alone tells us that Hawking is in drastic disagreement with the conclusion you're attempting to reach. And yet, there are many other comments within the article which also refute your claims, assertions and conclusion.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:56:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang."

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them"

"If one can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, one can then apply the singularity theorems, to show that time must have a beginning."

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."

All verbatim his own words.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:57:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 12:43:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/11/2014 12:37:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is right out of the link YOU provided in asserting that Hawking supports your fallacious ideas about the universe having a beginning out of nothing.

- "The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Read that, Ben. Read it as many times as you need to. Do you not grasp the fact that he's talking about the universe before big-bang? So how does that fit with the universe arising though big-bang, out of nothing? It doesn't, does it. Be honest with yourself.

How does this in any way, shape, or form support the existence of anything pre-existing the Big Bang?

Are you friggin' serious? It's talking about the universe BEFORE big-bang. How can it talk about the what the universe was like before big-bang, if the universe didn't exist before big-bang? You're either less intelligent than I've given you credit for, or you're simply not being honest with yourself. Hawking is saying that the universe existed in some form before big-bang, but the outcome of big-bang is completely independent of what the universe was like before big-bang.

It's VERY CLEAR that you didn't even read the article. Go read it. Perhaps you can have a mod delete your thread to save yourself some embarrassment. I'd quote the article in greater detail for you but it states at the outset that all forms of reproduction are prohibited. That's really too bad because there are a number of statements in that article which turn your argument into a complete joke.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 1:05:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 12:57:00 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/11/2014 12:43:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/11/2014 12:37:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is right out of the link YOU provided in asserting that Hawking supports your fallacious ideas about the universe having a beginning out of nothing.

- "The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Read that, Ben. Read it as many times as you need to. Do you not grasp the fact that he's talking about the universe before big-bang? So how does that fit with the universe arising though big-bang, out of nothing? It doesn't, does it. Be honest with yourself.

How does this in any way, shape, or form support the existence of anything pre-existing the Big Bang?

Are you friggin' serious? It's talking about the universe BEFORE big-bang. How can it talk about the what the universe was like before big-bang, if the universe didn't exist before big-bang? You're either less intelligent than I've given you credit for, or you're simply not being honest with yourself. Hawking is saying that the universe existed in some form before big-bang, but the outcome of big-bang is completely independent of what the universe was like before big-bang.

There is no established "before the Big Bang". He explicitly said that there's no reason to assert the existence of anything prior to the Big Bang. You commonly assert the existence of an eternal energy. How does the quote "The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before" support the pre-existence of an eternal energy in any way, shape, or form?

It's VERY CLEAR that you didn't even read the article. Go read it. Perhaps you can have a mod delete your thread to save yourself some embarrassment. I'd quote the article in greater detail for you but it states at the outset that all forms of reproduction are prohibited. That's really too bad because there are a number of statements in that article which turn your argument into a complete joke.

I have read the article in its entirety before. It's been a few months but I am fully aware he isn't arguing for God's existence.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 1:35:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:39:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The existence of logical absolutes presupposes a universal, conscious, and transcendent mind.

Can God exist and not exist at the same time?

No.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 1:44:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 1:05:16 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/11/2014 12:57:00 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/11/2014 12:43:33 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/11/2014 12:37:31 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is right out of the link YOU provided in asserting that Hawking supports your fallacious ideas about the universe having a beginning out of nothing.

- "The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Read that, Ben. Read it as many times as you need to. Do you not grasp the fact that he's talking about the universe before big-bang? So how does that fit with the universe arising though big-bang, out of nothing? It doesn't, does it. Be honest with yourself.

How does this in any way, shape, or form support the existence of anything pre-existing the Big Bang?

Are you friggin' serious? It's talking about the universe BEFORE big-bang. How can it talk about the what the universe was like before big-bang, if the universe didn't exist before big-bang? You're either less intelligent than I've given you credit for, or you're simply not being honest with yourself. Hawking is saying that the universe existed in some form before big-bang, but the outcome of big-bang is completely independent of what the universe was like before big-bang.

There is no established "before the Big Bang". He explicitly said that there's no reason to assert the existence of anything prior to the Big Bang.
At which point you either stopped reading or decided to just ignore the rest. And the rest was to state why... because there is no way one can measure them. That's important, Ben. He's not saying there was no universe before the big-bang. He's saying we have no way to measure any of the events of the universe before big-bang. Again, read the totality of what he is saying, in context.

- "one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them" The why is important!

So is he saying there were no events in the universe before big-bang?
Or is he saying we can't measure the events in the universe before big-bang?

Put this together with his statement about the universe evolving out of big-bang independently of what it was like before big-bang. Now how can you read that to claim that the universe was created in big-bang, and didn't exist prior to that time? He's saying exactly the opposite - that it did indeed exist before big-bang, but that because the laws of physics break down within big-bang, we can't measure any of the events prior to big-bang. So Hawking is stating that the universe existed before big-bang, and that time existed before big-bang, but that we can't know anything about them aside from that they did exist. And since we can't know anything about them, or speak intelligently about them, then we might as well cut them out of the theory.

You commonly assert the existence of an eternal energy.
Only because it is the most likely conclusion. We know that the universe existed prior to big-bang, and we know it couldn't have existed in a state of matter. What you conclude after that is inconsequential. The point is that the universe was not created... did not "begin to exist" in big-bang. It transformed from a prior state. And the most likely candidate for that prior state is energy, because energy is an alternate state of matter.

How does the quote "The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before" support the pre-existence of an eternal energy in any way, shape, or form?
That statement - by itself - neither supports a state of the universe of pure energy, not does it refute it. In fact, it doesn't address it, except that it obviously states that the universe did indeed exist prior to big-bang. It goes on to say that we can't know about its state prior to big-bang, because of the break-down in the laws of physics at the point of big bang. However, we do know that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing, and that matter exists. We also know that if matter were to exist eternally, one encounters the problem of heat-death. So if you look to its alternate form - energy - and recognize that there is no longer a problem with heat-death, it makes for a rather obvious conclusion; that the state of the universe before big-bang was likely one of pure energy.

And if it wasn't pure energy... so what? The point is this; the universe DID exist prior to big-bang, in a state which cannot be known.

It's VERY CLEAR that you didn't even read the article. Go read it. Perhaps you can have a mod delete your thread to save yourself some embarrassment. I'd quote the article in greater detail for you but it states at the outset that all forms of reproduction are prohibited. That's really too bad because there are a number of statements in that article which turn your argument into a complete joke.

I have read the article in its entirety before. It's been a few months but I am fully aware he isn't arguing for God's existence.
You don't seem to be aware that he makes specific statements against the concept of the universe being acted upon by an outside force. That went away with the steady-state theory of the universe and he says so within the article.

So Hawking does not believe in God...
He does not support the idea of an outside agent acting on the universe...
He explicitly speaks of the universe before big-bang so he doesn't subscribe to the idea of the universe being created...
And he talks about time before big-bang, refuting your claim that time and energy came into being from non-existence at big-bang.

And with that, your OP is left devoid of even the most fragmented remnants of support, by the very article you linked to support it.

At some point, Ben, you need to start asking why this repeated assertion of yours fails each and every time you parade it's pummeled hull it out of the barn.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 9:38:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 1:35:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/10/2014 11:39:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:56:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
The existence of logical absolutes presupposes a universal, conscious, and transcendent mind.

Can God exist and not exist at the same time?

No.

Then God is subject to these logical absolutes, therefore he does not account for them.