Atheism is unreasonable

[Mister Agenda]

You absolutely don't understand the BGV theorem. The theorem doesn't make a case for a finite universe.

No, YOU absolutely don't understand the BGV theorem. The BGV theorem is used by many Christian apologists for the second premise of the kalam, and Mr. Vilenkin already told Dr. Craig that he represents the theorem accurately.

It would help to actually know what you are talking about when you make objections.

I'm more interested in what physicists have to say about the KGV than what apologists have to say about it. In what universe is 'Christian apologists use it' considered a reasonable defense for how a physics theorem is interpreted?

That is all fine and dandy, but unfortunately for these scientists, nature cannot be used to explain the origins of its own doman.

Bare assertion, dismissed as such.

Anything that can be explained or described by natural law has to exist within a universe. It has to exist within space-time. Anything beyond space-time is supernatural.

Another bare assertion. The supernatural is a force beyond scientific understanding. The origin of the universe is not beyond scientific understanding, there are a number of scientific explanations for the origin of the universe for which we currently lack sufficient evidence to confirm any particular one...although the quantum vacuum fluctuation hypotheisis seems to currently be the best supported one, mathematically.

You people make it seem like quantum events are supernatural and have these mystic powers or something.

It only seems that way to you because you've dishonestly re-defined the term 'supernatural' to suit your rhetorical purposes. Quantum physics is weird from a human perspective, but not supernatural.

Second, the BGV theorem applies to that alternative as well. The only condition for the theorem to work is for the average expansion rate to be greater than 0, that is the ONLY requirement, and it just so happens that the model that you are referring to does.

The energy of quantum vacuum fluctuations are also a likely explanation for the increading rate of the expansion of the universe. And the KGV does not address an infinite past, and this is from someone who leans towards the past being finite. I've got no issue with there being a beginning, I'm just not under the misapprehension that I know.

The universe began to exist, Mister. You will be hard pressed to find a plausible scenario that is not subject to the BGB theorem.

It may have begun to exist or it may have transformed from a previous state. No one actually knows. Either way, it does not impact on the probability of God existing.

Lets keep pretending like all physical evidence doesn't point to a finite universe. Let me repeat; THE UNIVERSE BEGAN TO EXIST. I understand that a finite universe is a tough pill to swallow, because we all know what a finite universe means, right?

A finite universe means absolutely nothing. I'm indifferent to the universe being past infinite or past finite. As soon as we know the answer to that, I'm happy to go along with it. I don't start with the conclusion I want to reach and work backwards. Whatever it turns out to be is fine with me. But all we KNOW is that the universe was once in a very hot, dense state; and then it started expanding. We do NOT know how long it was in that state before the expansion, or the origin of that initial state, or even if the question of what was before the BB makes sense given that's when time started for the universe.

Bullcrap. If causality cannot be not past-infinite WITHIN the universe, then the entire she-bang is impossible...whether the whole or the parts within the whole. I am saying the entire causal chain is impossible if time is infinite, whether within the universe or beyond the universe.

Prove it.

It is an assertion that I've proven/demonstrate in my other posts. It is easily demonstrated.

Correction: it's an assertion that you've proven/demonstrated in your own mind, while your posts have proven that you're actually unable to back up your assetion.

You are right, the universe came from God, and it doesn't apply to him.

Make up your mind.

If it was a "poorly understood natural cause", then it would also be subject to the infinity problem.

Prove infinity is a problem.

Look people, the infinity problem isn't going anywhere. It is independent of physics, which means you can mention all the quantum foam you want, but there is no way you can say the quantum foam can exist outside the universe and still transcend time all while in the state of motion and/or change.

The math says otherwise. I know it's hard to wrap your head around, but quantum weirdness proves that not being able to wrap our heads around something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Quantum vaccuum fluctuations definitely exist within our space-time, and the math says they could exist even if there wasn't any. Your issue with an infinite past can only be resolved by invoking a cause to which time does not apply. That you want it to be God instead of quantum vacuum fluctuations doesn't mean it is. Whether God or quantum foam, there was never 'absolute nothingness, and if you define 'universe' as everything that exists, the universe is past eternal, even if once upon a time it only contained God.

You just don't get it, do you? The universe as a whole cannot contain a past-eternal chain of cause/effect relations. The chain itself is impossible. Nor can this universe itself be part of an infinite chain of events, as that is also logically absurd.

Care to present a syllogism that proves it absurd that doesn't contain the conclusion in the premises?

The only way to get rid of this absurdity is to posit a transcendent cause, a cause that is not dependent upon anything outside of itself to exist.

Or acknowledge that humans finding something absurd is not enough to make something untrue.

Then stop talking about it and make one.

On reflection, it doesn't need a whole thread: An omnipotent being can do anything, and omniscient being can only do what it foresees itself doing. Done.

If they are not universal, then they are not objective.

Universal and objective are not synonyms. It's easy to imagine an alien species with a different morality that is still based on objective standards derived from its own nature.

What if the rapist don't share those kind of feelings? His feelings are different than yours..so who is right, and who is wrong?

The one whose brain is malfunctioning is wrong. A blind person lacking sight doesn't make green a matter of opinion. Even most rapists will agree it's wrong to rape someone, and don't appreciate being raped themselves. A society that forbids rape is objectively better functioning than one that allows it.

So basically, the golden rule. But that is still subjective though.

No more or less subjective than the personal decision to follow the law of the Bible...as the person who does so interprets it. You can't escape subjectivity, ultimately we are all responsible for our own choices and can't defend them by pointing to a dogma that we're following. We didn't have to follow it. We can't escape having to use our own judgment.

So, nature decides what is right and wrong? You said it is based on nature...how does nature tell us that rape is wrong?

I didnt' say it was based on nature. Something isn't good just because it's 'in nature'. I said it is based on OUR nature. It is based on what is best for human beings, given our nature. Even malfunctioning humans tend to agree they don't like being raped, murdered, or robbed. Properly functioning humans feel empathy, compassion, have an instinct for fairness and reciprocity, form personal bonds, and can anticipate consequences. They also have a lot of impulses and urges that aren't compatible with those sentiments, which have to be managed if we want to live in any kind of harmony, said harmony being in our own best interest. We can figure out better ways to live together. We figured out that slavery is wrong, eventually, and that was a big step forward. We're figuring out that giving people room to be different is more compassionate than forcing conformity. We can make moral progress, but adhering to ancient scriptures as the be-all and end-all of morality can be a hindrance to that.

I will prefer an entire thread to be made on this subject (which is somethig I can say for a lot of topics that is being discussedo n here).

Fair enough.

Follow them to create life, or follow them to understand that they contain instructions?

Follow them for them to work. DNA doesn't need anyone to understand it for it to manufacture complex molecules with specific functions. It's not really a set of instructions, it's what DNA does.

How can a mindless and blind process designate anything? \

Selection acting on variation. Just like we now use computer programs in imitation of evolution to design new molecules for us.

An RNA molecule would still need information to function, so the question of "where did the biological information come from" is not negated with RNA..and again, your God is "time", which is basically saying "given enough time, anything can happen".

Given enough time, anything possible can happen. No amount of time can accomplish the impossible. Do you dispute that? And we find yet another thing, along with ghosts, that you consider qualifying as God. Are you a polytheist, or do you just enjoy making up things you want to claim other people believe? I don't see why you don't worship the quantum vacuum, if you buy ghosts and time as God, why not that?

Christians claim "given enough time, Jesus will come". *shrugs*.

Time is irrelevant to that claim, as it's not a matter of odds. It does not become more or less likely depending on how much time is involved.

First off, nothing happened by chance, everything was planned by the Intelligent Designer.

If you're a determinist, there's no such thing as free will, and neither of us can help what we think. A designer that controls everything necessarily eliminates free will and choice. If you're not a determinist, you've no basis to claim everything is planned.

And notice you didn't say "life from nonlife happens all the time", because abiogenesis has never been observed and it is begging the question to even call it science.

Why would I say that something which clearly is a rare occurrence that happened under circumstances that can no longer be found in nature happens all the time. You can add what is and isn't science to the list of things you don't understand.

Second, you need at a minimum of 300 protein molecules to make just one cell...but the probability of producing even one protein molecule is astronomical, and you run those odds with trying to produce the 300 that is needed...which is improbability x 300.

No one believes life started with a cell. It needed one self-replicating molecule, and it only had to form spontaneously once. RNA is not a protein, but it can catalyze reactions like protein enzymes. The first self-replicating RNA strand would not need proteins, it could replicate without them. RNA isn't as good as DNA for making proteins, but it's otherwise more versatile. And a form of 'metabolism' likely drove RNA reactions in concert with other molecules. When activated nucleotides were addes to a type of volcanic clay, RNA strands up to 55 nucleotides long formed. Experiments simulating those of early earth show that the building blocks of RNA (sugars, phosphates, and bases) would have formed naturally. RNA may not have been the first replicator, there are TNA and PNA scenarios that are plausible. But there was a lot of complex organic chemistry happening in the Hadean era, especially in clay, hydrothermal vents, and even ice.

But here's the thing: if scientists produced a self-replicating molecule tomorrow by emulating Hadean-era conditions, it wouldn't affect your beliefs one whit. So why are you hung up on this point, a point that is EXTREMELY vulnerable to being disproven by ongoing research? When a self-replicating molecule is made in the lab, we'll be able to tell exactly what the odds of it forming spontaneously are; and they're unlikely to be so remote that a few hundred million years of complex organic chemical reactions occurring all over the planet can't reasonably account for it.

You can believe that a mindless and blind process somehow defeated those odds all you want to, but that requires a great deal of faith.

A fairly modest understanding of how probability actually works suffices.

We don't get the information from the laws itself. If I throw a deck of cards on the floor, there is no physical law that will allow the cards to all fall in ACE, KING, QUEEN, JACK, 10, 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1. That specified pattern..in order for that sequence to shape, an outside hand is needed.

Nope. All you need is to throw the cards on the floor enough times. Do you think that sequence won't show up if you throw the cards a billion billion times? What if there are a billion decks of cards being thrown every minute for a hundred million years...do you think that sequence won't show up without an intervening intelligent force then? When it comes to the first replicating molecule, we're talking about deep time and continuous opportunities in many places. The very unlikely can become nearly inevitable under those circumstances.

If I thought it would have made a difference, I would have.

All Discovery Institute 'scientists' commit in advance to the proposition that their work must confirm creationism. At the moment they sincerely make such a committment, their work in the relevant fields departs from actual science. Well-done science is built on reducing bias, not enshrining it. Which probably explains the Discovery Institutes poor record in actually discovering anything.

Well, guess what, at the Discovery Institute, there is a guy by the name of Michael Behe, I'm sure you've heard of him...guess what...he is a biochemist..and guess what...he is friends with Stephen Meyer...and guess what, Michael Behe makes the same arguments from DNA that Meyer makes...and guess what, those two have joined forces on occasions and take 2 on 2 debates with naturalists..and guess what, those debates can be found on youtube for all to see.

And guess what? Every time Behe claims something is irreducibly complex, it turns out to be laugably easy to show that it isn't. And guess what? Behe admitted in court that teaching creationism as science is equivalent to teaching astrology as science.

It is, the students are the scientists that look at the DNA and learn shit lol.

DNA was humming along for billions of years without anyone to understand it. It does not exist for the benefit of our edification. The 'students' are not part of the system, they are merely observers of it.

Right, it was a dumb process that only produced/created the fundamental building blocks of life. No big deal, right?

It's a very big deal. The process is still dumb, sloppy, and riddled with blind alleys, atavistic remnants, and flaws. Almost every species that has ever existed is now extinct. It's hard to imagine designing a more clumsy way to accomplish a goal. But it's tres' cool that it wound up leading to something that could understand it.

Yeah, its not really instructions at all...but somehow it was able to create life from nonlife, something that intelligent human beings haven't figured out how to do yet.

We've only been at it for decades, rather than the hundreds of millions of years it took nature, yet we're within sight of that goal. We can make a whole genome from scratch. We're working on the first completely synthetic cell. It's an exciting area of research that is likely to yield enormously useful benefits. It's a good investment.

So if I wanted to learn how to create life from nonlife, I would ask science...yet science doesn't know either...but yet, it did it??

Makes no sense.

You're emulating the critics of the Wright brothers. History will see you the same way, and you'll be an example that will stand the test of time of how it was religion that steered anti-science fantasists wrong yet again. I'll let you in on a little secret: atheists make lousy evangelists. The main source for the growth of atheism in the USA is believers behaving foolishly. Thank you for your contributions. I hope this thread will benefit someone sitting on the fence...if they're thoughtful, I doubt they'll tip your way after seeing your body of work thus far.

Don't know...but there is no secret there is a historical prejudice against the Bible.

It's no secret that many Christians adore feeling persecuted, even in countries where they wield enormous power...but it's not the power over life-and-death that they used to abuse when they had it, so I suppose it must seem like such a loss. Oh, for the good old days, eh?

Actually I do understand the theorem. Just because you are ignorant in that regard, don't mean that I am...and not only are you ignorant of the understanding, you are also ignorant of the implications, obviously.

The implications are inconsequential to the atheist position. That we have some sort of philosophical issue with a finite past is a concoction of your own brain. That you have one is self-concocted, too. If it was confirmed tomorrow that the universe existed eternally, you'd just adjust your worldview to fit it in with still believing in God. God is not a rigiid concept, it can be made to fit with any scientific finding, but it's useless for making predictions about what science will find precisely for that reason. God is not falsifiable, no matter what is found...which makes God non-confirmable as well. It's the price paid for believing in an ad hoc God that can be retroactively fitted to any facts.