Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

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?

Again, WLC already released a quote from Vilenkin at which Vilenkin told him that he represented the theorem accurately, and we all know that WLC uses the theorem as scientific evidence that the universe began to exist. Plus, look at all the physicists that try to evade the theorem...it becomes apparent at where the evidence is pointing.

Bare assertion, dismissed as such.

Bare assertion?? Ok, how about this...I want you to explain the origins of your computer...can you do that? Of course you can...but here is the catch: the origin of your computer has to exist WITHIN the computer...you cannot use any external source to explain the computer's origin...can you do that?? No, you can't.

So think about what you are saying before you say it.

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.

What the hell are you talking about? I said "anything that can be explained or described by natural law has to exist within a universe, and anything beyond that (the natural realm) is supernatural".

So how does the above quote from you negate anything that I just said? It doesn't. You are just attacking without any merit whatsoever, and it is quite sickening.

The energy of quantum vacuum fluctuations are also a likely explanation for the increading rate of the expansion of the universe.

Irrelevant. The only requirement for the theorem to hold true is for the AVERAGE expansion rate to be greater than 0...and guess what, an "increasing rate of the expansion" is greater than 0, so the theorem applies.

People...please.

And the KGV does not address an infinite past, and this is from someone who leans towards the past being finite.

First off, what the hell is the KGV? It is called the BGV (Borde/Guth/Vilenkin), and it DOES address an infinite past, by proving that the past isn't infinite.

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.

Philosophical problems are brewing in that notion.

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.

A finite universe means that the past is infinitely long...but again, there are some philosophical problems with that...and no physicist will be able to help you out in that regard...you know why? Because philosophical problems are independent of physics...so until you can successfully refute these problems, then your "hopes" of science figuring something out for you is futile.

Prove it.

Based on the infinity problem and causation...no single event within the universe (and by "universe" I mean all natural reality ANYWHERE) could ever come to past...and if no single event within the universe could ever come to past, that mean that nothing that is within the universe can be used to explain the fact that events DO come to past....and since causes within the universe can't explain it, that would mean that we need to posit a cause OUTSIDE of the universe...and that cause is the source of the universe as a whole, and every part within it.

Elementary stuff going on here.

Prove infinity is a problem.

I did, with Esqualax (whatever his name is). But ok, I will pass the hot potato to you, because it is clear that he couldn't handle it.

If there was an infinite number of births which preceded your birth, how will your birth ever come to past? For every single birth that came to past, there is an infinitely many more births to go..so your birth would never come to past.

Or better yet, if me and you are on a road, and I told you to begin walking, and after you've taken an infinite amount of steps on this road, you will receive a trillion dollars...and you began walking...at what point would you "traverse" infinity...and receive the money?

If you can answer either of these questions adequately, I will become an atheist.

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.

I am talking about infinity, and you are talking about some damn quantum foam?

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

Answer the above analogy. If you can do that, then no syllogism is needed.

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

Logically absurd concepts are untrue. If you don't know that, then maybe I am wasting my time talking to you. I can talk to people that don't understand the fact that something that is logically absurd cannot "happen".

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.

Makes no sense.

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.

False. Objective moral values mean that things like rape and murder are wrong no matter how many people think that they are right. The "rightness" or "wrongness" transcends what man think or doesn't think.

The one whose brain is malfunctioning is wrong. A blind person lacking sight doesn't make green a matter of opinion.

So if you have one group of people that believe rape is wrong, and another group that believe that rape is right...which side prevails? And not only that, but again, where does moral values come from? Nature? Nature doesn't know right from wrong? Where does it come from in the first place?

Even most rapists will agree it's wrong to rape someone, and don't appreciate being raped themselves.

Well, Charles Manson was asked do he regret anything that he did. And his reply was "No, I wish I had done more."

A society that forbids rape is objectively better functioning than one that allows it.

So right and wrong is based on what society thinks? So if the society allowed it, then that would make it right?

No more or less subjective than the personal decision to follow the law of the Bible

If the Bible has within it the commandments and laws of a omnibenevolent Being who is just and holy, then there is no subjectivity to it.

...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.

You just said above that moral values is objective, now you are down here talking about subjectivity?

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.

So who decides what is best for human beings in the first place?? Individuals? Societies? Civilizations? Governments? Who? Where does moral values come from, and who decides of all of the moral values, what is right, and what is wrong?

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.

Where does these functions come from? And how come nature was able to create life from nonlife despite being mindless and blind, when intelligent human beings cannot do it?

If you haven't noticed, I keep going back to the question of origins...and also if you haven't noticed, the questions of origins are the most difficult questions for you people to answer...and that isn't a coincidence.

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

A selection is not a creation. It selects from stuff that is already there. How did the stuff get there in the first place? It can't select from anything if the stuff that it is selecting didn't come from somewhere else.

Given enough time, anything possible can happen.

Right, given enough time, Jesus can/will return.

No amount of time can accomplish the impossible. Do you dispute that?

Oh, I believe it, I just don't believe that this is the case. You would need wayyyy more time (in my opinion), than the 13.7 billion years since the universe began. That isn't enough time.

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?

I am a Christian theist.

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.

Admittedly, the notion of free will stumps me. But then again, on naturalism, there is no free will, because all of my decisions are based on the flow of electrons and neutrons in my brain...but I can't control them but they control me...so my actions are not "free actions", so I am not responsible for anything that I do.

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.

But yet if God doesn't exist then it had to have happened that way, right?

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.

All of that is irrelevant if you can't go in the lab and start biting, instead of being on internet forms every day barking. In other words, all bark and no bite. Everything that you just said sounds good. It sounds great. It sounds technical. Ok, take all of that information, go in the lab, and get some results that is on your side of things. Until then, keep on barking.

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.

You are right, it wouldn't. Wanna know why? Because that would still prove that for life to exist, you need INTELLIGENT DESIGN to orchestrate the process. The entire process would take some intelligent engineering, wouldn't it?

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.

But you don't get that many chances. See, now we are talking about entropy, which is another problem for the naturalist. The entropy had to be low from the very moment of the big bang, and there was only one shot...one try...and it hit the jackpot. The constants that govern natural are all precise...all geared to be suited for intelligent life...all made with mathematical precision...and you don't get that kind of precision from a mindless and blind process which was derived from a spontaneous big bang with no intelligent hand guiding the process.

All Discovery Institute 'scientists' commit in advance to the proposition that their work must confirm creationism.

Genetic fallacy, and I could say the same thing. I can say that Richard Dawkins goes in the lab and perform experiments that confirms his atheism. How about that?

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.

So a dumb, sloppy process created something more complex than a Boeing 757? Wow. Seems pretty smart to me.

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.

Yeah, hundreds of millions of years for a mindless and blind process. That time should be reduced drastically since you now have intelligent human beings at the wheel.