Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

If it can't happen in an analogy, then it can't happen in reality.

And you haven't established that it can't happen in either. You've just... said it a bunch, as though your incredulous exclamations count for anything.

Right, PRIOR to the big bang...which means that our universe had a beginning, which is what I've been arguing...it had a beginning, and therefore, it had a cause.

You realize that a singularity is not nothing, right? It is, in fact, something. One might be tempted to point out that, actually, it is everything. So, prior to the big bang, all the matter in the universe still existed, just compressed down to a hyper-dense point. Are you really attempting to argue that there was a beginning of our universe in which our universe already existed in a different state?

Your knowledge of this stuff is profoundly flawed; nowhere in the scientific models does it state that the big bang represented the beginning of our universe. For all we know, it could simply be a change in state from another form of being; all the big bang actually is is an expansion of local spacetime into our current universe. What lies beyond it is still a mystery, but you have no reason at all to declare that nothing at all lies beyond it.

I don't know about that. First off, I gave you a video where Vilenkin is presenting the theorem, and it seems pretty clear to me that he is advocating a finite universe. All of these quotes and stuff, I am not in the business of going back and checking references, because a lot of quotes are misquotes and are in fact down right deceitful...and I don't need quotes when I have a full video of Vilenkin explaining the theorem to an audience. Nothing else is needed.

Yeah, you completely misinterpreted that video. Did anyone else watch it? Did anyone else see the first three minutes, where Vilenkin states that one would need new physics prior to the boundary conditions of a past-finite universe? In other words, one would need new physics to describe what happens before the beginning of our universe? Does that sound like someone asserting a beginning of the universe, full stop? No, it sounds like exactly what I was fucking saying all along.

Vilenkin goes on to say a lot of other things that confirm what I've been saying and are mutually exclusive with what His_Majestic_Incompetence is saying, like, say "expansion is not really a property of spacetime, it is a property of a congruence of geodesics," meaning that universal expansion is not the same thing as the universe exclusively expanding. It's hardly surprising that you're oversimplifying things to your own advantage, that's what apologists do, but it's not going to work here.

Ok, and? He is saying that hypothetically speaking, the one major criterion that gives the theorem its juice could be violated...but so far, this hasn't happened and all known cosmological models that has been presented have failed. So right now, this theorem is what is happening in cosmology, and it's been over 10 years since the paper, and scientists have tried and tried...so far, NOTHING. The question is simple...what is the best evidence that we have as of TODAY which supports a finite universe...and so far its been the big bang, plus the BGV theorem...and you can add the philosophical problem against infinite regress, and you are left with one big problem for anyone advocating an infinite universe.

What did I just say, about oversimplifying things? You're just so desperate to throw infinity at me, despite what I'm actually saying. By now, it's just an outright lie. My point is that we don't know, as Vilenkin says, that we "don't even know what the right questions are," and furthermore I doubt I'm going to be trusting you, Mr "There is no fossil record," to detail the state of any scientific field to me. Might I just say how completely hypocritical it is of you to lean on (what you think is) science when it suits you, while throwing out any science that doesn't agree with what you already believe?

Damn an email, I have a VIDEO from Vilenkin himself.

A video in which he repeatedly says that one needs new physics once one gets to the boundary in universal inflation.

What? It was a freakin picture of Guth with Carroll narrating what Guth allegedly said. Why didn't he just have Guth do a short video (a 10-15 second snippet) saying exactly what Carroll quoted him as saying?? Bullcrap.

You can't argue with visual evidence, fool. Guth is right there on screen, literally holding the text of his answer. The fact that you (baselessly) decided that a mysterious something is wrong with it, that it doesn't live up to your randomly decided standards, doesn't mean a thing, other than that you'll dismiss whatever's convenient for you, for whatever reason you can scrabble to.

I have a video of him explaining the theorem. It is hard to take a 40 minute video of the theorem's implication of context. I posted the vid, and you haven't addressed it yet.

I have now: you're wrong about what he's talking about. Does that make you happy? Vilenkin even says, toward the end that his approach is to follow the universe back as far as he can using classical spacetime, whereupon he reaches a point where he can't follow any more, beyond which "it's not clear what happens."

Sure sounds like a person saying we don't know what happens prior to the universal inflation of the big bang to me.

Dishonesty? Please. You don't want to put a "large bet" on pretty much anything in science. The question is, according to the modern day cosmology, where does the evidence point...and as you just quoted Guth, he said to him, it probably did....and this was BEFORE the 2003 paper with Vilenkin and Borde.

He also said that the answer was inconclusive... which was the point I have been arguing for, through all your strawmen, since the very beginning.

For the 9th time...I posted a video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and explaining why the theorem proves the second premise of the kalam.

Yeah, and you really fucked up when you did because the video absolutely does not confirm what you claim it does, as my quotes from it above demonstrate. You do this counting thing a lot during this post, it's clear you think you've got a real trump card here, so I want all the readers out there to remember just how proud His_Majestic_Ego is of this point, versus how badly it actually reflects what he wants to be true. The irony will be quite bracing.

Because inflation is a key component of an expanding universe, that's why...so when they make theories, the theory has to reflect the background knowledge that we have from other observations.

... Yes, and the reason the universe is expanding is because of the big bang, meaning that prior to that there would be no expansion, and the BGV theorem would no longer be discussing the universe, would it?

An obvious misrepresentation of the theory. When do they ever say "beginning of inflation' as opposed to "beginning of the universe". Wishful thinking...But, I can't blame you for that kind of false rendering. It must be hard knowing that a finite universe implies an external cause. That was Einstein's problem as well

They say it in the part that I quoted.

"Unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics"

In other words, "if "if" was a "fifth", we would all be drunk".

Fuck you. "If" and "unless" are entirely different words. For starters, science doesn't run on certainty, only on possibility; "if" is merely a part of the scientific lexicon when it comes to writing papers because declarative statements are easier to prove wrong with new information later. The fact is that you have no idea about even basic parts of the scientific method, as you've just shown.

But that's not the point, either. The point is that unless says something else entirely. It says that this condition needs to be avoided for what I quoted to be untrue, and it also says that at the time the BGV theorem was written, it was not avoided. Meaning that, when the BGV theorem was written, the quoted part, their chief conclusion, was something they could not avoid. I mean, it's interesting already that you'll dismiss what they wrote as their chief fucking conclusion as merely an "if," when obviously they didn't think so, to put it in such strong language, but the fact is that "unless" and "if" are not the same word, they mean different things, and simply pretending that they don't does not change the context of the quote I posted.

You are fucking wrong and you know it, that's why you just fled from this point with a glib little dismissal.

Ok, the 10th time...I have video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and implying the finitude of the universe. The bottom line is, no model has come close to violating the one condition needed for the theorem to work, which is based on the average Hubble expansion being greater than 0.

And you misinterpreted that video.

Vilenkin already told Dr. Craig that he represented the theorem accurately.

I don't know why he did that, but that doesn't erase the rest of his writings either.

11th time. I have a 40 minute video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and stating its implications to an audience.

So you don't have any response beyond your own flawed interpretation?

The word of God will prevail over any scientific opinion. But hey, that is just my opinion.

Maybe try demonstrating that god is real, else his words can't prevail over shit.

If there is anyone that is going to do some slapping, it will be me

The fact that you still think that is hilarious.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There is no fossil record.

Humbly submitted for the wall of shame.

LOL.

No this one needs to go to FSTDT.

Serious POE or actual idiot, impossible to tell.

[Aoi Magi]

If the Roman empire was a human body, Christianity would be equivalent to full blown aids

That is the best analogy I've heard of christianity so far.

[His_Majesty]

This is far from unsupported. ALL the evidence, or lack thereof, points to an Exodus as portrayed in the Bible, never happened.

1. There were never over 1.2 million Hebrews living in Egypt.

How do you possibly know this?

2. There is no evidence that Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt.

How do you possibly know this?

3. Over a million people wandering around the desert for 40 years would have left a lot of evidence. None has ever been found.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? Abandoned tents? Sleeping mats? Food wrappings?

---

Because dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Have you ever observed any exceptions to this? I will answer for you: No. So why do you believe that the animals of yesterday was able to do something that the animals of today have never been observed to do?

First, learn to quote properly! I had to fetch the quote from the correct place to put it here!

Second, because "yesterday" represents a long, long, long, long, long, long time. More time than what we've had available to test that.
Still... we see some forms of bacteria turning into different forms of bacteria,
Fruit flies that evolve new reproductive processes,
E. Coli that develops the ability to use citric acid as a carbon source,
domestication of foxes,
let's not forget, ring species.
And many others... not to mention the fossil record and all the neat changes of fossil characteristics with the time that they're dated to.

Putting it all together, it seems that evolution is a process that has happened on this planet over the ages and is still happening, today.

You can't base your conclusion about evolution just by looking at what you see around you in your day-to-day life. Darwin had the luck of being the first to notice the pattern. Others came later and noticed it in other species, in fossils, everywhere!

---

---

I agree, it happened so long ago, that it never actually happened at all.

[Esquilax]

I agree, it happened so long ago, that it never actually happened at all.

Is this going to be what your thread is like? People directing you to scientifically valid, peer reviewed evidence, and then you going "nuh uh!"?

[His_Majesty]

On what subject? We are talking about lots of subjects mannnn

Ah - you've caught up.

However, please don't insult my intelligence or my patience with childish evasions. You have been arguing that the Universe shows unambiguous signs of being intelligently designed and/or created; or at the very least desgned/created by some agency, intelligent or not. That is the context - now please answer the question.

I've also been arguing a little bit against evolution, and also spoke on the subjects of the Resurrection, abiogenesis, mind/body dualism, and the ontological argument.

Now that you've specified exactly what your question was in reference too, I will answer...I don't foresee my arguments being refuted by any future developments in science or philosophy...or even history. So therefore I don't see me abandoning my beliefs in the future...at all.

---

And while we're at it.

Explain, why god would create such a vast universe, when all he cared about was that little blue ball and his Sims living there?

Seems like an awful waste of time, effort and energy. I'm mildly curious about the explanation you can come up with.

Maybe he wanted man to explore the vastness and wonders of his work..which is what they are doing. It is as if God created one big cosmic museum where man can marvel, explore, and learn.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I agree, it happened so long ago, that it never actually happened at all.

Is this going to be what your thread is like? People directing you to scientifically valid, peer reviewed evidence, and then you going "nuh uh!"?

Yup.

[His_Majesty]

Dude, you're doing it wrong.
At least WLC tries to understand the science and find loopholes in it to shoehorn in a god....
You..., on the other hand... you ignore the science whenever it doesn't agree with your preconception of god and then ask for things like this:

This is just dumb and stupid. It may work on some uneducated americans, I'll grant you that.... yahoo chat rooms, huh? those pre-4-chan halls of troll and ignorance?

Still much to learn, you have, young one.

Okey dokey.

---

Fuckin' hell, you're older than me and you're this bad at forming a cogent argument?

Well, just take these intellectual spankings as a good old fashioned case of the elder putting the youngster in his place.

If your god does exist, he is no doubt embarrassed at the lies you've told, about evolution, about atheism, about so much more, in order to come to his "defense". Why does he even need defending from someone like you, anyway? Can't he fight his own battles?

Evolution is the lie I am speaking against...and don't worry, during the Armageddon and on judgment day, God will be definitely fighting his own battles.

---

Every single post that has rebutted your repeated assertions in this thread.

That would depend...if you think bad rebuttals are still rebuttals, then yes, many of my posts have been rebutted

You mean your 'nuh-uh' rebuttal where you convincingly argued that the exodus as biblically Stated has an element of truth to it (by virtue of the dismissal of the evidence that suggests it never happened)?

There is no evidence which suggests it never happened, and if there is, I haven't seen it yet.

The issue you have with garnering all your information about topics like evolution from apologist websites is that its always wrong.

Always?

'Dogs only have dogs.' I mean come the fuck along. Remember a few lines ago where I said your posts showed that your knew nothing about the topics you're talking about?

It is the truth!!! Dogs produce dogs...in other words I am saying that animals only produce what they are, not what they aren't. Unless you can prove otherwise, I don't understand why we are even having this discussion.

One of your main fallicious arguments in this thread has been Kalam and variants thereof.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Problem?

The lack of evidence for anything in exodus being even remotely accurate is evidence for it being false (as above, no Jewish exodus from Egypt, no visit to Mt Sinai.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If that is the case, abiogenesis is false on the fact that there isn't any evidence for it.

The fact that you think Moses lived to be hundreds and hundreds of years old speaks volumes.

I don't believe that Moses lived to be hundreds and hundreds of years old...I believe that he lived to be 123 yrs old, just like the Bible says...and judging by the fact that the oldest person alive today is 116 yrs old...I don't think an age of 123 is to far fetched.

Tell us again about all these years you've spent researching topics and refining your arguments?

What do you wanna know?

You've made, what,40 odd posts thus far and what have you contributed; the same old tired apologist nonsense we've all heared and debunked time and time again. Change the channel already.

You haven't debunked anything until you can prove how infinity can be traversed, how life can come from nonlife, and how consciousness can come from unconsciousness.

Until then, all bark, no bite.

Is there someone else we can talk to? A theist who knows what he's doing?

Don't know why you are looking for someone else..weren't you just complaining about the same stuff being presented? Yet, now you are asking for someone else? Well, what would be the difference if another theist comes in here? The same arguments will be presented.

The only difference will come in the actual DEFENSE of the argument. You may be used to being able to just walk all over theists who may not be as familiar with the arguments/defenses against the arguments.

Sorry Charlie, that ain't me.

[Surgenator]

What other method can we falsify God or is this the only way to falsify God? If I define an internally consistent God, does that make him exist?

If the God that you define is internally consistent, that would make "his" existence POSSIBLE. But whether or not this entity actually exists, that would depend on something else.

For something to exist, internal consistency is necessary but it is not sufficient. If you claim there is no way to falsify an interally consistent definition of God, then your God claim is similiar to the orbiting-tea-pot claim.

Well, we are talking about the distinction between necessary existence, and contingent existence...the "god" could be internally consistent, but its existence could be actually false.

The possibilities are endless, but there is only one reality. So to say something is possible isn't saying much at all. Stating the likelihood is where you can acutually get somewhere.

What is the likelihood that abiogenesis is true? It is based on chemical reactions which we know exist. It's also based on self-replicating molecules which we also know to exist (e.g. RNA). So the likelihood is pretty high.

What is the likelihood that God created life? Well it is based on an intelligents that doesn't have a physical body which we have never seen that. It is based on a being that can break physical laws of nature which we have never seen either. So God's likelihood is pretty small.

[Esquilax]

Evolution is the lie I am speaking against...and don't worry, during the Armageddon and on judgment day, God will be definitely fighting his own battles.

In the meantime, care to debate me on the topic of evolution? Not, like, in thread, I mean an actual, formal, structured debate. We have an area for that here, it's been a while since it was used last... you seem to be under the impression that you're winning these little jousting sessions, so what reason do you have to decline?