Media

[Harris]

You haven't shown the Universe to have been caused at all.

The foundation of Big Bang Theory is placed over proper scientific discoveries. This theory says universe has a beginning. Beginning cannot be without a cause therefore I cannot add anything new on top of it. So, let us return back to my question:

Is not the Cause of Universe greater than all scientific ideas?

Either everything that exists must have a cause, or some things do not need to have been caused. You say the Universe must come from "SOMEWHERE," but you do not demand that God must come from "SOMEWHERE." Therefore, it is possible that something may exist which does not come from "SOMEWHERE."

Here you are calling for Infinite Regression.

Infinite Regression = Nothingness
Nothingness = Nothing (not anything)

Perhaps this was the fact that had brought Aristotle to a pragmatic approach of Prime Mover which is intuitive and logical. Aristotle’s prime mover is both the final and the efficient cause of the universe.

The only conceivable idea behind the cause of the universe is an uncaused God. Any other idea (whether scientific speculation or a simple guesstimate) would whirl the mind and sucks human intellect down to unfathomable darkness of ignorance. That is the reason why scientists got puzzled and found themselves in a state of wandering when encountered with the question what caused the intelligible Universe if not God. Please check post #76 for the references.

If something may be said to exist without needing to be created, then I would argue that conservation of energy/mass/etc. itself is a prime rule, and that the Universe doesn't come from somewhere.

Is not the statement “Energy cannot be created nor destroyed” has started curving into a controversy due to the emerging concepts affiliated to expansion of the universe, negative energy, and especially because there is no non-circular proof of energy conservation?

1) CAPS ARE ANNOYING. I can read-- you don't have to HIGHLIGHT the KEYWORDS for me.
2) The Big Bang singularity was timeless, in the same way that Allah is. Note this: Allah is not eternal, since eternity relies on a framework with infinite time. But if you want to call timelessness "eternity," then the Big Bang is still a better fit for cosmogony than Allah is. I predict you will special plead: "But who MADE the Big Bang singularity?" And I'll say "But who MADE Allah." And you'll go on about how Allah doesn't need to be made.

Get this. . . it doesn't matter what model of reality you want to favor or contest. Your causal argument fails to special pleading-- the idea that everything must be caused, but not God. So. . . not everything DOES need to be created, and the argument is self-defeating.

Didn't read the rest of your text wall. I'll go back to some of it later if I have a lot of free time.

Singularity (whatever it was) is a physical phenomenon. People can have (true or false) presentation of it based on its physical attributes such as density, temperature, size, … all of which are presentable physical concepts.

Physical objects cannot exist without space and time. Therefore, existence of singularity out of time and without space is not a logical idea. Secondly, singularity was not static, it was dynamic otherwise it would never had produced the universe. So, singularity with all its physical properties and dynamism in space and time cannot be a causeless entity.

Science can detect pain and the causes of pain by classifying certain behaviours in certain events but it cannot measure the value of pain and cannot give it a depiction simply because pain has no physical properties. Likewise, science can detect the presence of intelligence in natural events but it cannot give any physical image to it.

So, if someone try to show you pain through Hubble Telescope or you try to disprove the existence of God due to lack of physical evidences then both of these acts are deluded.

In the physical world, you can see both the cause and the effect. However, in metaphysical world, you can see and feel the effect but not the cause. In the metaphysical world, the cause is conceivable only through logic.

Your logic fail is real. You should think before you say dumb stuff like this.

I didn't say there's a connection between homosexuality and great music. I said that there are many homosexuals who have contributed positively to humanity-- whereas you have not. Therefore your criticism of homosexuality on the basis that homosexuals cannot contribute to humanity is obviously not well-founded.

Nor, because gay people can be great scientists, is that an assertion that Einstein was gay because he was a scientist or vice versa. That's a false syllogism, and is taught in Logic 101, which you apparently have not yet taken.

Let me use your own logic. You say homosexuals have not contributed to humanity. YOU have not contributed to humanity. Therefore, by your brilliant reasoning methods, you are a homosexual. Do you accept this logic? If not, then don't be stupid enough to use it in your own arguments.

I did not ask which homosexual did what.

For example:
Islam is beneficial for the humanity because it commands to give charity to the poor. If some Muslim steals by ignoring commandments of Islam, his act of stealing would not transform Islam into a harmful ideology. So, in place of telling which homosexual did what, answer to my very simple question:

IS HOMOSEXUALITY BENEFICIAL TO THE HUMANITY? IF YES, THEN TELL US HOW.

Harris Wrote:
Mocking non-Jews is a Jewish Holy Ritual and Jews enjoy it doing. On the other hand, they cannot tolerate when non-Jews mock them. That is the reason why Atheist forum is full of anti-Christian and anti-Muslim comments whereas I am the only person in the entire atheist forum who is condemning the deceits of Jews and Judaism.

No one can be more arrogant than the Jews.

Bennyboy Wrote:
This is clearly false, since I've gone on record saying fuck the Jewish scriptures and anyone who observes them. . . and also fuck you, your lack of basic logical skills, and your barbaric religion as well.

When I criticise Talmud, I give proper references to show why Talmud is detestable. Out of 100,000,000 comments against Quran and Gospels if you have thrown couple of anti-Talmud comments without giving proper references and in an effort to stop me bringing the shit out of Talmud then that is not a big deal. Among anti-Quran and anti-Gospel posts if I have missed anti-Talmud posts then please show them to me and prove that I am not the only person who is writing anti-Talmud posts and atheist forum is not biased.