Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

I'll handle the rest of this stuff later on- I don't often have fifty thousand years at a time with which to respond to these tomes we write- but I do have some stuff to say about the early game right now that I'll get out for the folks at home, and follow up maybe tomorrow.

The argument against infinity is independent of past scientific knowledge, present scientific knowledge, and future scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is simply irrelevant when it comes to philosophical problems such as infinite regress.

Except where the scientific evidence would provide an answer; you can call the infinite regress- still not the thing I'm actually arguing, by the way!- a philosophical problem all you want, but when the evidence comes in saying one thing it doesn't matter what you're philosophical inclinations are. You won't be able to change reality just by thinking about it really hard.

Why is ever since Hubble's discovery, cosmologists have been positing theories that would naturalisticly explain why our universe began to exist...like the Steady State Model...Oscillating models, etc, which is something you wouldn't need to do if you believed our universe is infinite.

It's also something that you'd do if you didn't know what the universe was like prior to the big bang and were attempting to figure it out. Stop trying to stuff infinity into my corner like it's what I'm arguing for, and address the actual position I hold, which is that neither of us know.

Well, I don't know about all of that...but what I do know is that William Lane Craig put out there for the record a personal email correspondence with Alexander Vilenkin himself, regarding the theorem and also Lawerence Krauss' deceitful representation of the theorem, which can be seen here http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-t...gv-theorem

Actually, what WLC presents us is a second hand email purporting to be from Vilenkin. So what we've got here are two sources, both with emails from Vilenkin, in which he says two different things. The important point to note is that in the email I presented, there is no room for the kind of misinterpretation that WLC often engages in; the man is asked straight out whether his theory implies a beginning, and his answer is no. Given this kind of straight-talking answer, what can we say of Craig's response? My suggestion is that, as he is seen doing in the video I provided, Craig is wilfully misinterpreting Vilenkin's words to his own benefit, which is a tactic he is on record as doing many times.

And in case you are to lazy to read through the entire page, I will quote you the one good paragraph, from Mr. Vilenkin to Craig..


I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately. This is not to say that you represented my views as to what this implies regarding the existence of God. Which is OK, since I have no special expertise to issue such judgements. Whatever it's worth, my view is that the BGV theorem does not say anything about the existence of God one way or the other. In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology.

Dr. Craig is a advocate of the BGV theorem and Vilenkin said that Craig represented the theorem very accurately.

Yes, and he also said later on: "The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime, in which the notions of time and causality can be defined. On very small time and length scales, quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. Then we do not really have a language to describe what is happening, because all our physics concepts are deeply rooted in the concepts of space and time. This is what I mean when I say that we do not even know what the right questions are.

Bolding mine. Well gee, you know what that sounds like? It sounds like what I've been saying all along, that our physics is not currently equipped to accurately handle descriptions of a pre-expansion universe! hock:

It's funny, how you'll highlight the bits that you think agree with you, but stop short of including the conclusion Vilenkin makes at the end of his email, when it basically states what I've been saying all along.

I have quite a few things to say about this. First, the narrator of the video made some very ridiculous points, and what is funny is the fact that he thought he was REALLY saying someting lol. Second, it is also funny the fact that I am semi-familiar with the Carrol-Craig debate, so when you say "Alan Guth was willing to go on video for Sean Carrol" I immediately thought, "Well, I watched the debate between Carrol/Craig, did I miss something? Because I don't remember seeing Guth "go on video for Sean Carrol" when I watched it.

So then I reluctantly went on ahead to watch the vid that you posted above, and sure enough, no where in the clip or in the debate in general did Guth "go on video for Sean Carrol". So where the hell you got that from, I don't know. Maybe you worded it wrong.

Or you could go to 2:56 on the video I posted and see a nice picture of Alan Guth on the projector, holding up text of his answer right there in the picture for all to see.

What actually happened in the debate was Carrol "quoted" Guth, but he didn't tell us where he got the quote from at all. He just made the assertion that this is what Guth stated.

No, he had Guth right there on screen. And it's funny that you'll take WLC "quotes" of Vilenkin as factual, but when someone who disagrees with you quotes someone you cast aspersions.

Ahhh but in case that isn't enough for you, here is an article from Mr. Guth himself

And in case you don't want to read the entire article, I will just quote you a paragraph that is meant to sting..

"At the present time, I think it is fair to say that it is an open question whether or not eternally inflating universes can avoid having a beginning. In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning. I believe this for two reasons. The first is the fact that, as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning; they are eternal into the future, but not into the past. The second reason is that the technical assumption questioned in the 1997 Borde-Vilenkin paper does not seem important enough to me to change the conclusion, even though it does undercut the proof."

Hilariously, again you cut out the bit where Guth agrees with me, and not you.

"So, as is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I would not want to place a large bet on the issue."

It's the last sentence, the conclusion. Good job with the dishonesty there.

And before you start saying that I've moved the goalposts, I'll point out that "we don't know" has always been my view. It's even the view Guth espouses in the video: "I don't know." I picked the BGV theorem specifically because it's fun to take an apologist's chew toy and use it against them, and you took the bait pretty hard on this one; misrepresenting this theorem is the WLC specialty, after all.

Incidentally, you do understand that the BGV theorem only discusses inflationary models of the universe, yes? As a response to physicists who use inflationary universes to assert an eternal universe? And that their conclusions, insofar as they suggest a beginning, suggest a beginning to the inflation, and not to the universe as a whole? Which is basically what the big bang is... the pre-conditions of which I've been telling you we know nothing about this entire time?

Don't believe me? Here's a quote from the BGV theorem itself:

"Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper

Bolding and enlarging mine. So... even what you were originally referencing doesn't say what you were asserting it said. It says... what I said is the consensus of physicists.

I think that about caps it, when it comes to BGV. You can hardly argue with the paper itself, let alone its "chief result." I'm sure you'll try, but then, I knew what the BGV was describing from the beginning, and just wanted to give you some line so you could ensnare yourself. I took you as the kind of guy who wouldn't look deeply at what the results were, since the barest surface reading of the conclusions seem to agree with what you want to be true... and you didn't disappoint.

You hung yourself on this one, guy.

[The Grand Nudger]

But would a computer code/program exist without intelligent design? Yes or no?

They can and do. So..yes?

[pocaracas]

It's like Beccs says... so many goodies.
I hate all that arguing over the authors of some ancient text... it's pointless.
The contents, on the other hand, are what we have.
Evidence: contents of the bible - a string of stories about a man who, on occasion, is claimed to have done magic, the real sort of magic... and whenever he did that, all around him were amazed... even those who had already seen it happen several times, the disciples.
A few of those stories contain an account of what happened to that man after being tortured and killed by crucifixion, the guy was walking again! Talk about magic!

The book itself claims that these stories were actual depictions of real events.... or, at least, leaves that well implied and the followers of the stories assert that they do, in fact, represent real events, as accurately depicted as possible, for the literary abilities of the people who wrote them.

Does that mean that the stories really happened? Perhaps some, perhaps most were enhanced... specially where magic was involved, huh?
Some parts in the stories relate to actual known locations, customs and, even, events. Mundane events are not difficult to accept happened. Magical events are a "bit" more difficult.
You see, there are other pieces of evidence we can use here... evidence believers rarely even consider to be evidence.
Evidence 1: Pre-existing religions. Egyptians, Sumerian/Assyrians, Hindi, etc...
Evidence 2: Pre-existing fictional writings. Iliad, Odyssey, etc...
Evidence 3: Pre-existing cons, where people perform apparently impossible feats, like illusionism/stage magic... Like the levitating yogi.

What does this tell us?
People already believed in the existence of gods before yahweh came into the picture.
People were already producing written stories of events that didn't happen, often referencing known locations and customs.
People were already conning other people with seemingly magical events.

It is, then, much more likely that the stories in the bible, at least, the parts which involve magic, were literary devices included in the story, to make it more... amazing?... powerful?... power over the pre-believed gods?.... who knows....

Suddenly, the notion that the man depicted in the stories was the actual god incarnate becomes far less reasonable... which god? one of the pre-existing gods?

Yahweh was eventually hypostatized with El. Several pieces of evidence have led scholars to the conclusion that El was the original "God of Israel"—for example, the word "Israel" is based on the name of El rather than on that of Yahweh.[10]:32 Names of the oldest characters in the Torah further show reverence towards El without similar displays towards Yahweh. Most importantly, Yahweh reveals to Moses that though he was not known previously as El, he has, in fact, been El all along.[39]

El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon, with Asherah as his consort and Baal and other deities making up the pantheon.[10]:33 With his rise, Asherah became Yahweh's consort,[40] and Yahweh and Baal at first co-existed and later competed within the popular religion.[10]:33–34

It's so much easier to make people believe in something they already believe, just with a few details tweaked in, don't you think?
That's how, a few decades ago, the Catholics believed in the notion of Limbo... but now the pope says there's no such thing.... so there's no such thing.... never was.

How could the stories in the bible gain so much traction in the ancient middle-eastern world?
There were probably many factors that went into that... but one is that the stories were relatable... the people saw themselves in that "fight the power" representation of J.C. against the temple merchants and traders.... as people always like to... and went with it.
Some people wrote them down, possibly adding some flourishes which, in time, became canon. Many others must have written other stories which, for several reasons, didn't make it into the canon. Those reasons were anything but divine... again, power over the people... with the people's support.
Eventually (there's that "time god" you keep speaking of), the roman leaders saw the power of this belief. One god to rule them all. Perfect to try to bring the whole roman empire into unity... didn't work out so well for the roman empire... but the institution that was created, the catholic church, that one resisted.... it spread out... the whole of Europe was forced to accept that belief... Europeans then took that belief to the Americas, sub-saharan Africa, Australia... And then we got Ken Ham.

With a history surrounding the stories in the bible so rich in control, gullibility, and evolution of a concept, why should I, now, believe that the stories represent true events?
There's no way my mind can accept them as true. They are on par with the Silmarillion, the Unfinished Tales, the The History of Middle Earth... or, if we can go for single authorship, Harry Potter - both have magic, the latter mentions actual real locations and all, both have the eternal struggle between good and evil, the former has a very awesome depiction of the creation of the Universe.

[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.

[Cyberman]

Maj, do you think there could exist anything, any kind of evidence, which might possibly change your views on this subject?

[Esquilax]

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.

The BGV theorem includes an entire passage towards its conclusion stating that it is not sufficient to describe conditions prior to the expansion of the universe, and it does not make a declarative statement about whether that "prior" represents a beginning, or something else. This, it says, is the chief conclusion of the paper. I know apologists use BGV a lot, but the point is that they are misrepresenting the conclusions of the theorem, as are you.

You also cut out a part of Vilenkin's answer where he specifically says this, and now, after misrepresenting and cherry picking, you accuse someone else of not understanding the paper? You're pretty much directly lying now.

It would help to actually know what you are talking about when you make objections.

This is the kind of irony that makes my theist-whomping worthwhile. Incidentally, did you ever read the BGV theorem in its entirety? Or did you just get a cliff notes version from some apologist website?

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.

If you understand the theorem, would you mind telling us why you state that it says things that are directly contradicted by, and I quote, the "chief conclusion" of the theorem? And also things that none of the writers of the theorem were willing to come out and say? Would you mind telling us why you're misusing the theorem, and overreaching with what it describes, when the theorem itself only discusses universal expansion, and not universal beginnings?

You know, for someone who understands the theorem, you do seem to be making a lot of statements that are directly contradicted by the theorem.

[His_Majesty]

Apparently it's a 160 year old lie that has held up to 160 years of scrutiny

I don't believe that it has, and I'd like to devote an entire thread it hasn't.

[Whateverist]

No need to bother on my account. If you're another theist here simply to argue for your right to believe what you like, save your breath. But if you come across anything you believe might be convincing to a neutral observer there might actually be something to talk about. Bring that on. But no need to convince anyone that your own criteria are reasonable. They're your criteria, you make that call.

[His_Majesty]

That's the fun. I get to point out something that'll make him flee to the hills every time

Do I look worried?


Because there is no possible way for you to rebuttal the TRUTH

[Mudhammam]

Maj, do you think there could exist anything, any kind of evidence, which might possibly change your views on this subject?

I know it's kind of cliche, but the heart wants what the heart wants.

Clearly, his head currently rides backseat on the journey from perceptive reality to conceptual belief.