Atheism is unreasonable

[abaris]

Careful with the word "nothing", guys. The way theists use it isn't really well defined. The big bang theory isn't a creation ex nihilo proposition, so if "nothing" means "non existence" then the answer would be we don't know, as there is no possible way to examine or measure non existence by definition.

Absolutely this.

[Lek]

Careful with the word "nothing", guys. The way theists use it isn't really well defined. The big bang theory isn't a creation ex nihilo proposition, so if "nothing" means "non existence" then the answer would be we don't know, as there is no possible way to examine or measure non existence by definition.

Absolutely this.

The reason I'm asking is that according to scientific "fact" matter had to always exist and will always exist. It's really hard to fathom something that always was and always will be. Since matter always existed, it couldn't have come from nothing (the total absence of anything), but obviously some of you hold that one or the other of these assumptions is true.

[dyresand]

Careful with the word "nothing", guys. The way theists use it isn't really well defined. The big bang theory isn't a creation ex nihilo proposition, so if "nothing" means "non existence" then the answer would be we don't know, as there is no possible way to examine or measure non existence by definition.

The really big misconception with big bang and theists something blew up then working universe. That's not even how it happened it took billions of years for the basic elements to start forming things.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yes, so be careful with the words you're using to describe it or you'll further their confusion and make discussion more difficult.

[abaris]

The reason I'm asking is that according to scientific "fact" matter had to always exist and will always exist. It's really hard to fathom something that always was and always will be. Since matter always existed, it couldn't have come from nothing (the total absence of anything), but obviously some of you hold that one or another of these assumptions is true.

We don't know what happened before the Big Bang. At least, most of us claim to don't know.

Science didn't find the answer yet and everything that is said is pure speculation.

[Anomalocaris]

Absolutely this.

The reason I'm asking is that according to scientific "fact" matter had to always exist and will always exist. It's really hard to fathom something that always was and always will be. Since matter always existed, it couldn't have come from nothing (the total absence of anything), but obviously some of you hold that one or the other of these assumptions is true.

Yet you don't find it hard to fathom that some entity, possessed of seeminly childishly anthropamorphic traits, as well as an elastic suite of attribute always ready to be stretched to fit the ad hoc argumentative and wishthinking needs of the least educated and least scientifically literate of our societies, "always was and always will be", to say nothing of also being omnipotent but yet so unable to avoid torturous excersises to get to what you say he wants to get to.

[FatAndFaithless]

Absolutely this.

The reason I'm asking is that according to scientific "fact" matter had to always exist and will always exist. It's really hard to fathom something that always was and always will be. Since matter always existed, it couldn't have come from nothing (the total absence of anything), but obviously some of you hold that one or the other of these assumptions is true.

No, see this is exactly why I said we have to be careful with the definitions of the words we use, because they have different meanings in different spheres. Much like the scientific definition of 'theory' versus the colloquial one, the word 'nothing' suffers a similar divergence.

No, science does not claim the universe as we know it came into existence from nonexistence. I also don't know where you're getting this 'matter has always existed' thing either, as our understanding of time only extends as far back as the Planck time after the initiation of the Big Bang.

[dyresand]

The reason I'm asking is that according to scientific "fact" matter had to always exist and will always exist. It's really hard to fathom something that always was and always will be. Since matter always existed, it couldn't have come from nothing (the total absence of anything), but obviously some of you hold that one or another of these assumptions is true.

We don't know what happened before the Big Bang. At least, most of us claim to don't know.

Science didn't find the answer yet and everything that is said is pure speculation.

we really wont know but as far as we do know now is that nothing even time and space didn't exist yet.

[abaris]

we really wont know but as far as we do know now is that nothing even time and space didn't exist yet.

Of course.

[dyresand]

Absolutely this.

The reason I'm asking is that according to scientific "fact" matter had to always exist and will always exist. It's really hard to fathom something that always was and always will be. Since matter always existed, it couldn't have come from nothing (the total absence of anything), but obviously some of you hold that one or the other of these assumptions is true.

Matter didn't always exist. you take a event like the big bang time and space expanded into nothing. from their you have the basic element helium. Helium cannot form bonds when hot so millions of years later it started bonds with other helium creating oxygen millions of years later stars start to form. basically that's it in a nut shell.