(April 22, 2012 at 11:02 pm)Jireh Wrote:

(April 22, 2012 at 10:19 pm)Darwinian Wrote: Yes, the fact that the Universe looks and behaves in exactly the way it would if there were no god...

based on what parameters do you think you can affirm this ?

Quote:If the Universe did not operate on naturalistic principles but instead was guided by the whims of a divine creator then we could never make any accurate predictions and science itself would make no sense.

why ?

Quote:The fact that we can formulate laws and theories and use them to accurately predict and understand such things as orbits, eclipses, weather patterns, animal behaviour, social dynamics, financial trends, plate tectonics, time dilation (re: Satnavs), tides (O'Reilly take note), animal migrations, the outcome of mathematical equations, atomic decay, biology, natural history, physics etc. etc. points to the inevitable conclusion that either there is no guiding hand of the divine or that hand stopped guiding at the point of the big bang!

please show the correlation of the premise, with the conclusion.

I'm not really sure I can put it any clearer than that. If you're having trouble understanding this then there's not much point in continuing this discussion.

Quote:the comment was however from John Barrow and Frank Tipler. They were just mentioned by Craig.

If Craig supports John Barrow and Frank Tipler, they're most likely as retarded as Craig.
And I've just done a quick background check on them. They are retarded.

Quote:Tipler identifies the Omega Point final singularity as God since in his view the Omega Point has all the properties claimed for God by most of the traditional religions.

Looks like Tipler is completely devoid of credibility, just like Craig.

The moment you mention Craig I should punch you in the face. He is a joke. The fact that you're desperate enough to support him shows how desperately you want there to be a god. Don't like the idea that a universe can pop itself into existence. Because it means that god isn't needed.

Quote:i have seen this video ad nausea being posted by non thinking atheists......
they believe it, because it fits their world view. But thinking it trough, its utmost nonsense.

Yeah Stephen Hawking doesn't think despite being the worlds smartest man. Fact is it's based on observation. Evidence! It's well supported. And using creationists to counter it won't get you very far.

Quote:so you hold a standpoint without having any credible evidence to it up ??!!
Have i understood this right ? So you hold a atheistic world view based on no evidence ?
thanks for admitting that.....

I've already told you, atheism simply means without theism. It doesn't require evidence. You claim there is a god and as an atheist I reject that claim.
Theism = Belief in god
Atheism = Lack of belief in god.
Why would atheism need evidence if it makes no claims? It's a stance you twit.

Are you really this retarded?

---
Just read your earlier posts, you are without a doubt the most retarded person I've encountered this month. So you don't know a thing about evolution (no surprise there), you don't know a thing about gravity (no surprise there either), you know nothing about the cosmos (expected from a creationist) and you think religion can explain all these things as well as science can ah? Well, explain where energy come from, explain how gravity works and you must explain it through religion not science.
Go on, if the supernatural can give you more information than science can, demonstrate it.

(April 22, 2012 at 11:52 pm)Epimethean Wrote: It crosses a lot of minds here.

Why ?

---

(April 23, 2012 at 2:51 am)Darwinian Wrote: trouble understanding this then there's not much point in continuing this discussion.

you make a lot of pressupositions and assertions, and when i ask you to go into details, you assert that " i don't understand " your assertions. I take it as dodging my questions .......

you aren't credible so far....

---

(April 23, 2012 at 5:23 am)Ace Otana Wrote: If Craig supports John Barrow and Frank Tipler, they're most likely as retarded as Craig.
And I've just done a quick background check on them. They are retarded.

ok, understood. They are retarded, becase they explain that virtual particles do not arise from absolutely nothing. Could you explain, what makes you come to your conclusion ?

and you could explain also, why i should take you serious.....

Quote:The moment you mention Craig I should punch you in the face.

probably because you are despaired as most atheist oponents, he defeated in his debates ?

Quote:He is a joke. The fact that you're desperate enough to support him shows how desperately you want there to be a god. Don't like the idea that a universe can pop itself into existence. Because it means that god isn't needed.

when the argument cannot be defeated, the proponent is attacked. Its always like this.
So you believe seriously, something can arise from absolutely nothing ?
Could you explain, how something can arise from the absence of any thing ?

Quote:Yeah Stephen Hawking doesn't think despite being the worlds smartest man.

says who ?

Quote:Fact is it's based on observation. Evidence! It's well supported. And using creationists to counter it won't get you very far.

excellent point.
Could you present just ONE observation, where something arose from absolutely nothing ?? you're kidding me......

Quote:I've already told you, atheism simply means without theism.

thats not what you said previously. You admitted you did not understand the science, to conclude strong atheism is true. Getting evasive now ?

Quote:It doesn't require evidence. You claim there is a god and as an atheist I reject that claim.
Theism = Belief in god
Atheism = Lack of belief in god.
Why would atheism need evidence if it makes no claims? It's a stance you twit.

So what are you arguing with me, then ? you make a positive claim, that our universe came to be by absolutely nothing, through virtual particles. And that leads to strong atheism, since you claim then, because of this scenario, most probably God does not exist. You hold a strong atheistic view......

Quote:Are you really this retarded?

personal attacks just show you have no good arguments to defend you view point, and think insults will do it. Are you a teenager ?

---

Quote:Just read your earlier posts, you are without a doubt the most retarded person I've encountered this month.

Why are you loosing your precious time then with me ? if i would be you, i would search people of your level to debate with, then.

i dont think we have still something to say each other, do we ?

Quote:ok, understood. They are retarded, becase they explain that virtual particles do not arise from absolutely nothing. Could you explain, what makes you come to your conclusion ?

and you could explain also, why i should take you serious.....

Creationists are retarded.

Go 25 minutes in and it should explain it for you. Or watch the whole thing if you like. But 25 mins in goes into the subject of the universe coming from nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1...re=related

Quote:probably because you are despaired as most atheist oponents, he defeated in his debates ?

Yeah right......

Quote:So you believe seriously, something can arise from absolutely nothing ?
Could you explain, how something can arise from the absence of any thing ?

Yeah I do. If you remove all matter and energy and said there is nothing, you'd be half right and half wrong. Look into Stephen Hawking's explanation. It really is easy to understand I've found.

Quote:Could you present just ONE observation, where something arose from absolutely nothing ?? you're kidding me......

On the sub-atomic level, yeah. Photons/virtual particles. Quantum laws, another law of nature.

Quote:thats not what you said previously. You admitted you did not understand the science, to conclude strong atheism is true. Getting evasive now ?

Really? Quote me.

Quote: And that leads to strong atheism, since you claim then, because of this scenario, most probably God does not exist. You hold a strong atheistic view......

Quote me where I said that.

Quote:Why are you loosing your precious time then with me ? if i would be you, i would search people of your level to debate with, then.

So you can't provide detailed explanations for energy, gravity, the cosmos and such with religion? You keep harping on about how naturalism is false and lacks evidence and so I challenge you to provide what naturalism/science can't.

Quote:i dont think we have still something to say each other, do we ?

We completely disagree with each other. We have a lot to say, it's just that it'll never really end.

Who is claiming that something comes from nothing?

Oh, creatio ex nihilo, that would be the christian theology that claims this.

Scientists claim "We don't know but we're working on it". That's not the same as nothing.

Your argument is reliant on this claim, yet no one really makes it in the way you suggest.

The big bang is proposed as a sudden and massive expansion of all matter in the universe. The question is where the matter came from, which in itself may be a faulty question.

The real issue, is that we don't know what the question is, rather than not knowing the answer.

Maybe its "What is 6x7?"

(April 23, 2012 at 6:30 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Who is claiming that something comes from nothing?

Oh, creatio ex nihilo, that would be the christian theology that claims this.

There is quit a substantial difference between

God created the universe from nothing, and
nothing created the universe......

---

(April 23, 2012 at 6:28 am)Ace Otana Wrote: We have a lot to say.

no, i think we have nothing to say anymore to each other.

(April 23, 2012 at 6:40 am)Jireh Wrote: There is quit a substantial difference between

God created the universe from nothing, and
nothing created the universe......

The problem with this that you fail to provide evidence for that extraordinary claim that your specific god created the universe. Oh well...

Let me guess, the bible?

(April 23, 2012 at 6:40 am)Jireh Wrote: There is quit a substantial difference between

The fact you used the word substantial as a descriptive word for the difference made me laugh, cheers.
I hope you understand why, its not a dig at you, but funny in context of the discussion.

Quote:God created the universe from nothing, and
nothing created the universe......

Let me repeat the point. Hardly anybody says nothing created the universe.
By implication there is probably always something, even if its the "nothing" in the scientific physics/quantum sense.

(April 23, 2012 at 6:47 am)LastPoet Wrote: The problem with this that you fail to provide evidence for that extraordinary claim that your specific god created the universe. Oh well...

Let me guess, the bible?

you have the oportunity here to present a better alternative.

---

(April 23, 2012 at 6:47 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: Let me repeat the point. Hardly anybody says nothing created the universe.

your fellow Ace Otana does. Krauss does, Hawkins does....

Quote:By implication there is probably always something, even if its the "nothing" in the scientific physics/quantum sense.

what does it mean, by the physics/quantum sense ?

either there was always something, or there was not. you cannot have it both ways.