RE: Being Made Fun of For NOT Belieiving...
September 29, 2011 at 12:22 am
(This post was last modified: September 29, 2011 at 12:24 am by LunchBox.)
Holy Christ in a paddle-boat...you can't make this shit up:
Atheist #1 (not me):
That's actually not quite accurate. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief in God. This lack of belief does not require an alternate creation theory; it's perfectly possible for an atheist to say that we do not yet have sufficient ...evidence to say with relative certainty that we know what happened "in the beginning". However, since you seem to be referring to the big bang in this picture, then I'll correct it: because time itself began at the big bang, there was no "before" the big bang. Therefore, this picture's phrasing, which says that "there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason" is actually inaccurate because the language is indicative of causation, which did not exist. Because time and space came into existence at the time of the big bang, then there was no "before" the big bang so there was never "nothing", nor is there such a thing. Also, when this picture says "nothing magically exploded for no reason", it is also unfortunately incorrect, because the reason was that vacuums are unstable in nature and cause particles to pop in and out of existence- this has been observed.
Christian apologetics (certified
) instructor:
1. You said, "That's actually not quite accurate. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief in God. This lack of belief does not require an alternate creation theory; it's perfectly possible for an atheist to ...say that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to say with relative certainty that we know what happened 'in the beginning'."
Of course atheism is a belief. It is the belief that there is no God. It is not necessary for atheists to have a rigorous theory of the origin of the universe for this to be true. Simply believing that "A creator 'God' is NOT the explanation for reality" is a sufficient proposition to be labeled as "atheism," because the term merely (and literally) means "no belief in God." Your response might be correct if you held to "soft" agnosticism. A "hard" agnostic is one who says, "I CANNOT know if God exists...and neither can you." This is obviously a belief. A "soft" agnostic, on the other hand, simply does not know if there is a Creator God, but is open to the possibility that an answer can be found. It would seem that only in this case could you state that it is simply a "lack of a belief." For the atheist or "hard" agnostic, such a reply amounts to a cop-out.
2. You said, "However, since you seem to be referring to the big bang in this picture, then I'll correct it: because time itself began at the big bang, there was no 'before' the big bang. Therefore, this picture's phrasing, which says that 'there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason' is actually inaccurate because the language is indicative of causation, which did not exist. Because time and space came into existence at the time of the big bang, then there was no 'before' the big bang so there was never 'nothing', nor is there such a thing."
You are correct to say that there was no "before" the Big Bang, but it is incorrect to conclude that this means there is no causation! A cause was absolutely necessary for the Big Bang, because this event was an "effect." This is why the name "Big Bang" actually works pretty well. After all, a banging sound always has a source in a particular cause. Your misunderstanding is in the conclusion that a cause must always precede an effect "in time." If this were the case, then you are correct that there could be no cause, since there is no such thing as "before" time. So how can there be causation?
Well, a cause and effect relationship can occur simultaneously. Imagine a bowling ball resting on a sheet and creating a depression. The effect of the depression on the sheet is occurring simultaneously in time with the cause of the resting bowling ball. Metaphysically speaking, the depression is the result/effect of the cause, but temporally speaking, there is no before and after relationship taking place. With this explanation in mind, your statement on this topic stands invalid.
I should also add that the necessary implications that follow from such a cause of the Big Bang is that it is a:
-First Cause that is uncaused. There must be an ultimate cause or prime reality by which everything else came. This is also inferred from the fact that "time" itself came into existence at the Big Bang (as you said yourself). This would mean that the cause is eternal.
-Space-less or immaterial, since space and matter were created at the Big Bang. Another word for this is "spirit."
-Enormously powerful, since this First Cause brought everything into existence from nothing.
-Supremely intelligent, inferred from the fine-tuning and order of the universe (which cannot be explained away).
-a Personal Being, because a non-personal force does not make decisions and we do not exist by necessity (i.e. it could have been the case that we did not exist).
-This Personal Being is not a product of nature, since it (necessarily) transcends nature. The would mean that the cause is literally "super"natural.
So a timeless (or eternal), space-less (or spirit), supremely intelligent, enormously powerful, Personal Being (that is "super"natural) is the most logical explanation for the origin of the universe!
Who does this sound like to you?
3. You said, "Also, when this picture says 'nothing magically exploded for no reason', it is also unfortunately incorrect, because the reason was that vacuums are unstable in nature and cause particles to pop in and out of existence- this has been observed."
In your "correction" of the statement in question, you seem to be saying that the explanation for the "nothing" exploding is that the "vacuums are unstable in nature and cause particles to pop in and out of existence."
First, the quantum vacuum state is not nothing - it is something. It is a fluctuating sea of energy with physical laws acting on it. Secondly, you are begging the question, for the origin of such a "nature" is what is being discussed. The search for the explanation is the thing in question, and we've already established that there IS an origin - the universe (even in a quantum state) does not exist infinitely into the past.
For nothing to explode into something (actually into everything), without a natural cause (after all, there cannot be a natural cause of nature - that reasoning would be circular), and without a personal cause, then "magical" might be the best word for it!
In conclusion, I think the quote (although not technical in its language) is a surprisingly accurate summation of atheism.
Athiest #1, I hope you will abandon this worldview - it is an insufficient explanation for the existence of reality.
Atheist #1 (not me):
That's actually not quite accurate. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief in God. This lack of belief does not require an alternate creation theory; it's perfectly possible for an atheist to say that we do not yet have sufficient ...evidence to say with relative certainty that we know what happened "in the beginning". However, since you seem to be referring to the big bang in this picture, then I'll correct it: because time itself began at the big bang, there was no "before" the big bang. Therefore, this picture's phrasing, which says that "there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason" is actually inaccurate because the language is indicative of causation, which did not exist. Because time and space came into existence at the time of the big bang, then there was no "before" the big bang so there was never "nothing", nor is there such a thing. Also, when this picture says "nothing magically exploded for no reason", it is also unfortunately incorrect, because the reason was that vacuums are unstable in nature and cause particles to pop in and out of existence- this has been observed.
Christian apologetics (certified
) instructor:1. You said, "That's actually not quite accurate. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief in God. This lack of belief does not require an alternate creation theory; it's perfectly possible for an atheist to ...say that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to say with relative certainty that we know what happened 'in the beginning'."
Of course atheism is a belief. It is the belief that there is no God. It is not necessary for atheists to have a rigorous theory of the origin of the universe for this to be true. Simply believing that "A creator 'God' is NOT the explanation for reality" is a sufficient proposition to be labeled as "atheism," because the term merely (and literally) means "no belief in God." Your response might be correct if you held to "soft" agnosticism. A "hard" agnostic is one who says, "I CANNOT know if God exists...and neither can you." This is obviously a belief. A "soft" agnostic, on the other hand, simply does not know if there is a Creator God, but is open to the possibility that an answer can be found. It would seem that only in this case could you state that it is simply a "lack of a belief." For the atheist or "hard" agnostic, such a reply amounts to a cop-out.
2. You said, "However, since you seem to be referring to the big bang in this picture, then I'll correct it: because time itself began at the big bang, there was no 'before' the big bang. Therefore, this picture's phrasing, which says that 'there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason' is actually inaccurate because the language is indicative of causation, which did not exist. Because time and space came into existence at the time of the big bang, then there was no 'before' the big bang so there was never 'nothing', nor is there such a thing."
You are correct to say that there was no "before" the Big Bang, but it is incorrect to conclude that this means there is no causation! A cause was absolutely necessary for the Big Bang, because this event was an "effect." This is why the name "Big Bang" actually works pretty well. After all, a banging sound always has a source in a particular cause. Your misunderstanding is in the conclusion that a cause must always precede an effect "in time." If this were the case, then you are correct that there could be no cause, since there is no such thing as "before" time. So how can there be causation?
Well, a cause and effect relationship can occur simultaneously. Imagine a bowling ball resting on a sheet and creating a depression. The effect of the depression on the sheet is occurring simultaneously in time with the cause of the resting bowling ball. Metaphysically speaking, the depression is the result/effect of the cause, but temporally speaking, there is no before and after relationship taking place. With this explanation in mind, your statement on this topic stands invalid.
I should also add that the necessary implications that follow from such a cause of the Big Bang is that it is a:
-First Cause that is uncaused. There must be an ultimate cause or prime reality by which everything else came. This is also inferred from the fact that "time" itself came into existence at the Big Bang (as you said yourself). This would mean that the cause is eternal.
-Space-less or immaterial, since space and matter were created at the Big Bang. Another word for this is "spirit."
-Enormously powerful, since this First Cause brought everything into existence from nothing.
-Supremely intelligent, inferred from the fine-tuning and order of the universe (which cannot be explained away).
-a Personal Being, because a non-personal force does not make decisions and we do not exist by necessity (i.e. it could have been the case that we did not exist).
-This Personal Being is not a product of nature, since it (necessarily) transcends nature. The would mean that the cause is literally "super"natural.
So a timeless (or eternal), space-less (or spirit), supremely intelligent, enormously powerful, Personal Being (that is "super"natural) is the most logical explanation for the origin of the universe!
Who does this sound like to you?
3. You said, "Also, when this picture says 'nothing magically exploded for no reason', it is also unfortunately incorrect, because the reason was that vacuums are unstable in nature and cause particles to pop in and out of existence- this has been observed."
In your "correction" of the statement in question, you seem to be saying that the explanation for the "nothing" exploding is that the "vacuums are unstable in nature and cause particles to pop in and out of existence."
First, the quantum vacuum state is not nothing - it is something. It is a fluctuating sea of energy with physical laws acting on it. Secondly, you are begging the question, for the origin of such a "nature" is what is being discussed. The search for the explanation is the thing in question, and we've already established that there IS an origin - the universe (even in a quantum state) does not exist infinitely into the past.
For nothing to explode into something (actually into everything), without a natural cause (after all, there cannot be a natural cause of nature - that reasoning would be circular), and without a personal cause, then "magical" might be the best word for it!
In conclusion, I think the quote (although not technical in its language) is a surprisingly accurate summation of atheism.
Athiest #1, I hope you will abandon this worldview - it is an insufficient explanation for the existence of reality.
Let your anger be as a monkey in a piñata; hiding with the candy, hoping the children do not break through with a stick.
