Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

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.

But as a theist you lost interest as soon as you heard something that seemed to confirm your worldview?

No.

Most scientists think nature is amazing and are eager to learn more about it, regarding new mysteries as thrilling challenges. YMMV.

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

There's a Nobel Prize waiting for whoever can prove that must be the case. How about this alternative: At the Planck level of reality, there is a constant 'fizzing' of tiny bubbles of space-time popping into and out of existence, any one of which has the potential to expand into a full space-time continuum, but the whole of the quantum foam is effectively timeless. Quantum foam outside of a universe does not exist within a time dimension. And that's just one possibility.

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

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.

Time is a feature of a space-time continuum, quantum foam does not require a space time continuum in order to exist.

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

Interestingly, it seems to possess the property of necessary existence. You can worship it if you're so inclined, because it shares features often described as belonging to the creator of the universe. Not that I'm particularly attached to this explanation, it could be Branes for all anyone knows right now, and that's a different kettle of fish.

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?

Were the words too hard for you? I said causality is a property of things within the universe and causality might not apply to the origin of 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.

You have a mere assertion problem. None of that follows from a noncausal origin of the universe.

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

There certainly is to the space time continuum we find ourselves within. It doesn't necessarily follow that the concept applies to whatever the universe came from.

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

If that's the case, it does not follow that the cause is supernatural. At the moment, it certainly seems to be a poorly understood natural cause. I'm not sure what you mean by 'transcend time', but a quantum foam doesn't have to be contained in time. At Planck size, time can be another spatial dimension.

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

'Nuh uh!' doesn't resolve the fallacy. Rules that apply within the universe do not necessarily apply TO the universe. They don't necessarily NOT apply either, it's an unknown right now.

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.

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.

Thank you. I think that's a reasonable defintion in line with what most people have in mind when they say 'God', and I appreciate you not being coy. I think some of those qualities are at odds with each other, but that's a topic that deserves a thread of its own.

Then stop talking about it and make one.

If there are objective standards, they would be inherent to our nature as a species, but not universal.

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

Empathy and reason are good candidates.

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?

We feel we wouldn't want it to happen to us. We reason that we should agree among ourselves to punish it in order to reduce the risk of it happening to any one of us.

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

Our nature as human beings, though it's not hard to find an atheist who thinks morality is entirely subjective, I think some ways of ordering our society are objectively better than others taking only that people being healthy and happy is good and needless suffering is bad as my axioms.

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

Really? He seems to have had a profound personality change between the Old and New Testaments, and reading the Old Testament he certainly seems to evolve as the story progresses; going from the god of a particular tribe who lives in a particular mountain to a god more powerful than the gods of other tribes, to the only god. Then all of a sudden he abandons the prophet model and goes to procreating an incarnation. Once you had to sacrifice animals to him, later you don't. Once slavery was okay, now it isn't. I have trouble imagining a source for morals that's less subjective.

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).

How can you call them instructions when no one has to understand them to follow them?

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

But in a code you can designate anything as meaning anything else.

How can a mindless and blind process designate anything?

An RNA strand long enough could do it. Short RNA strands form spontaneously in conditions simulating what is believed to have been the case in the Hadean era. There would have been billions of opportunities a day for such a long strand to form, and it only had to happen once. The odds of any given hand of Bridge are about six billiion to one, but if you deal enough Bridge hands long enough, any specified hand you name will come up eventually, and millions of hands of Bridge are dealt every day. We don't know the odds of such a molecule forming spontaneously under the right conditions, but if it was a trillion-to-one, that's practically the same as inevitable given a planet with thousands of places it can happen and hundreds of millions of years for it to happen in.

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".

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

Protein molecules form by chance all the time.

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

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.

It turns out that rather than being entirely random, the laws of organic chemistry apply.

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.

And you probably should have said 'Discovery Institute 'scientist' Stephen Meyer

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

whose training is as a geophysicist, not an organic chemist

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.

Instructors also have students, and there's nothing analogous to that in DNA.

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

It's a dumb process that auromatically cranks out proteins.

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

It's 'instructions' without an instructor or a student. In other words, it's not really instructions, it's chemistry.

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. 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 made sense up to that last sentence. Can you think of a non 'Judeo-Christian' historical document that historians accept at face value, including the magic bits? [

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

You really should stop pretending to understand that theorem. Frankly, I don't completely understand it myself, but the authors flat-out state it does not mean what YOU think it does.

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.

---

Oh, then it should be trivial for you to get your research that shows this published. You'd win a Nobel prize, and all the money you'd earn from that you could keep for yourself, or donate to the needy if you don't want it. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so get to it!

First, I'd like evidence that it happened. Give me the evidence and I'll refute that evidence...you set'em up, and I'll knock'em down.

No it's not. If a robot causes something to happen, it's not a natural cause or a supernatural cause. It's an artificial cause.

A robot is bound by physical laws. Duh.

Oh, and any idea when you're going to admit you were wrong about the BGV theorem, yet?

I can't be wrong when I have a video of Vilenkin explaining the theorem and it's implications.

---

Oh, then it should be trivial for you to get your research that shows this published. You'd win a Nobel prize, and all the money you'd earn from that you could keep for yourself, or donate to the needy if you don't want it. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so get to it!

First, I'd like evidence that it happened. Give me the evidence and I'll refute that evidence...you set'em up, and I'll knock'em down.

No it's not. If a robot causes something to happen, it's not a natural cause or a supernatural cause. It's an artificial cause.

A robot is bound by physical laws. Duh.

Oh, and any idea when you're going to admit you were wrong about the BGV theorem, yet?

I can't be wrong when I have a video of Vilenkin explaining the theorem and it's implications.