What's next?

[Opsnyder]

I decided to write some points.
Let's begin with that god as a creator of the universe, afterlife, the statements of particular religions about what god is like and what he wants and what is true about the world are all separate claims and are not connected. If there is god it doesn't mean that there is afterlife and if there is afterlife it doesn't mean there is a god.

Now people say that god can't be disproven. Not true.
Hawking disproved god here.



Nobody can cause the big bang because there is nothing before the big bang. Steven Weinberg, Edward Witten, Victor Stenger all back him up.
So the only possibility is that god is just a powerful creature who was created after big bang and got nothing to do with how universe began.
Of course some people will say that he doesn't need laws of physics. Then how can you argue against such people? If they are against laws of physics then there is no point of talking to them.

Now the afterlife. It was probably disproven long before the big bang was explained. It could not be disproven before humans knew how brain works but not afterlife doesn't make sense.
To have memories, thoughts and feelings you need neurons fire impulses to each other. If there is no neurons then you can't be alive.
And for instance if someone falls into a star what is he going to be transformed into? Energy. Can energy be called a living thing? No.
And even if you will upload your consciousness into a machine or something you will just make the copy of yourself and it will live but you will die.
Einstein can back me up on this. He was against afterlife.
And even if there was a god afterlife would still be impossible.

Now about how believers bend their doctrines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg
Sam Harris obliterated Craig there.
Few things about craig. He says there is no morality without superior authority. Aka "We can't be moral unless a boss tells us what to do" and he can tell us anything even to slaughter people it would still be okay. You get my point. That's not even morality in my opinion that's just following orders without thinking about em.
Well Craig needs boss to tell him what to do in order to be moral. I don't. I guess that makes me a better person than him.

Another thing is that Craig picked one "true" religion and stated for instance that Islam is not true because it got wrong about jesus being crucified. So islam got ONE THING wrong about history and it is enough to convince him that islam is false. However the witchcraft, slavery and contradictions of the bible are TOTALLY IGNORED by him?
Not to mention that he has zero evidence to pick christianity. He just liked it more.

Also when I was in college I argued against a hardcore christian who believed that bible was true and everything else was false because of 2 reasons.
The bible said so = aka self reinforcing bullshit.
And second is that he was feeling him. Well his feeling is a proof to him. Not to me. Just because someone feels something is true doesn't mean it's true not to mention that people felt it with other things and other religions.

So what else is there to talk about?
As Sam Harris said if someone doesn't value logic and facts then what argument can you provide to them. If someone doesn't give a flying fuck about logic, truth, laws of physics, morals then what do you tell them?
There is nothing more to talk about.

As for closing atheist provided TONS of evidence for absence of afterlife and god.
What evidence is there for afterlife and god? ZERO.

Also some people complain that Dawkins doesn't have the balls to debate Craig. Well what's the point of debating Craig when he says same stupid bullshit which was debunked decades ago? Sam already destroyed him. No need to do same thing again and again.

[Tempus]

You're appealing to authority a lot. I agree there's no reason to believe in any gods. However, excepting some specific cases, there isn't necessarily evidence against them. No one has 'proved' gods don't exist, only that there's no reason to believe they do.

Edit: Clarified meaning of my post.

[Opsnyder]

Well according to laws of physics nobody can create the big bang because there was nothing before the big bang.
Therefore no god before big bang either.

Also the flaws in Craigs logic. On his wikipedia it says.
1 - Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2 - The universe began to exist.
3 - Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

According to laws of nature big bang doesn't have a cause of existance.
But even if it would then what was the god's cause of existance? Craig doesn't have an answer to that one.

" Craig maintains that the theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity."
Say whaaaaat?

"Although he does not fully endorse intelligent design, he thinks it may be a viable alternative to evolution."
You got to be kidding me. The evidence goes for evolution and against design on a MASSIVE scale.

"You're appealing to authority a lot."
Authority of greatest scientists on the planet.
Also you can work up these equations yourself if you wish. I had a lot of discussions with the professor of physics in my university and he explained all this very clearly.
Besides what kind of authority is the nomad who lived 2000 years ago who contradicts laws of nature and nobody is even sure he existed?
Scientists know better.
Not to mention all the slavery and shit in the bible.

[LastPoet]

Well according to laws of physics nobody can create the big bang because there was nothing before the big bang.

No laws physics ever said there was nothing before the big bang, that's the big problem with the first cause argument. No physicist ever said such, the truth is that we just don't know.

[Opsnyder]

Well according to laws of physics nobody can create the big bang because there was nothing before the big bang.

No laws physics ever said there was nothing before the big bang, that's the big problem with the first cause argument. No physicist ever said such, the truth is that we just don't know.

Look at the video. Hawking clearly explains how it works.
But even if we didn't know the rest of my arguments stand correct.

[Light of Truth]

Scientists do not know what happened before the big bang. And that includes Hawking. He has an idea as to what could have been before the big bang, but it is just that - an idea. Therefore, it is entirely possible (unlikely in my opinion, but possible nonetheless) that god(s) created the big bang.

[LastPoet]

Look at the video. Hawking clearly explains how it works.
But even if we didn't know the rest of my arguments stand correct.

Hawking never said there was nothing before the big bang, as you claimed in the portion I quoted, and that is the error I pointed out. We just don't know, for now, the extent of our knowledge anly reaches to 10^-53 seconds after the big bang. In all that knowledge we never saw an instance of "nothing", ever, even the gratest vacuum we observed still has something, and that makes the whole argument for the first cause fail.

[frankiej]

If you are interested in Hawking's take on this then you should read his book "The Grand Design". It is a good book and you will see that you have not fully understood what he was saying.