The Problem with Christians

[pocaracas]

Not saying this is relevant, but...
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking...is-no-god/
"Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God
The physicist explains that science now offers more convincing explanations for existence. He is therefore an atheist."


Also, have you ever heard of Krauss?

---

---

[Crossless2.0]

athrock, I must have missed the part where you made a compelling case that a singularity is 'nothing' or where you demonstrated that there was 'nothing' "prior" to the Big Bang (leaving aside the improper use of causal language to characterize what a universe "pre" space/time might be like). For that matter, I must have missed the post in which you provided "an entirely new suite of terminology" (to borrow from Esquilax) to describe the physics of a pre-Big Bang world.

Your insistence on using words like "nothing" and "cause" when trying to discuss what, if anything, was 'before' the Big Bang seems to amount to one continuous misapplication of terms that make sense in the world as described by our current models of physics but may not be applicable to what is being discussed. We really don't know. And you're putting the cart before the horse.

[LadyForCamus]

Loved Universe From Nothing! I read about half of that book, until the mathematics completely surpassed my ability to even comprehend the concepts. So I finished up with the YouTube lecture, lol.

[athrock]

You're right on two counts...I'm cute and it's not relevant.    

Because, as you say, let's not appeal to numbers...whether they represent the majority or the minority. Instead, I appealed to the sterling reputations of several towering giants of modern cosmology and astrophysics who agree that there appears to be far more in favor of Intelligent Design that you acknowledged when you tossed out your "convoluted reasoning" comment.

See, Lady, I've basically backed you into this corner, there is no escape from it, and you simply need to admit that you fucked up in your exuberance to trash the views of a believer.  

What would be even BETTER, however, would be for you to put aside your prejudices and presuppositions and actually THINK about the arguments rather than merely reacting to them emotionally. The truth is what it is whether you like it or not.


Thank you, lay-person, for your opinion. However, in some matters, it makes more sense to pay attention to the opinions of recognized experts.

This is one of those times.

This corner you imagine you've backed me into exists only in your mind, athrock.  Right next to your God.  It doesn't matter how many times you say it: quoting scientists who believe in ID does not make ID true.  There is still that pesky business of evidence for God and evidence for design that you (or anyone else) have, as of yet, failed to produce.

That was not what I said, LC. 

I said that the fact that serious scientists see a case for ID suggests that it is not based on "convoluted reasoning". Unless, of course, you wish to ascribe "convoluted thinking" to some folks who have proven themselves to be pretty well-stocked in the "little grey cells" department. 

[athrock]

Something CAUSED everything to come into existence. Things don't simply pop into existence uncaused.

So does painting a face on it and calling it God get you any closer to finding what that cause was?

No. Is there another question?

[athrock]

Not saying this is relevant, but...
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking...is-no-god/
"Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God
The physicist explains that science now offers more convincing explanations for existence. He is therefore an atheist."


Also, have you ever heard of Krauss?

---

---

The problem, as I understand it, is that Krauss actually envisions "nothing" as a sort of something that the universe was made from. I've not spent a lot of time on Krauss, but I gather than even other atheists have rejected his equivocation on this point.

Is this correct?

Oh, and yes, I do understand that Hawking is a committed atheist. I did not mean to imply otherwise previously.

[athrock]

athrock, I must have missed the part where you made a compelling case that a singularity is 'nothing' or where you demonstrated that there was 'nothing' "prior" to the Big Bang (leaving aside the improper use of causal language to characterize what a universe "pre" space/time might be like). For that matter, I must have missed the post in which you provided "an entirely new suite of terminology" (to borrow from Esquilax) to describe the physics of a pre-Big Bang world.

Ah, then you posit that a singularity is the "something" from which everything came. Setting aside the fact the singularity CHANGED from one moment to the next for reasons completely unknown (and requiring a cause), are you then of the opinion that this singularity was in existence from all eternity with no beginning in a finite past?

Your insistence on using words like "nothing" and "cause" when trying to discuss what, if anything, was 'before' the Big Bang seems to amount to one continuous misapplication of terms that make sense in the world as described by our current models of physics but may not be applicable to what is being discussed. We really don't know. And you're putting the cart before the horse.

Can we know? From science alone?

[pocaracas]

Not saying this is relevant, but...
http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking...is-no-god/
"Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God
The physicist explains that science now offers more convincing explanations for existence. He is therefore an atheist."


Also, have you ever heard of Krauss?

---

---

The problem, as I understand it, is that Krauss actually envisions "nothing" as a sort of something that the universe was made from. I've not spent a lot of time on Krauss, but I gather than even other atheists have rejected his equivocation on this point.

Is this correct?

Right about correct.
The thing is... we don't know what's beyond the Big Bang.
It can be the "nothing" which Krauss mentions.... and QCD then works well on top of that.
It can be a true absence of space-time, which leaves us completely blind as to how the Big Bang came into being.
It can be something else.... what it is, can't tell... better not assume stupid stuff.

[Ravenshire]

I don't see the relevance here. Small, localized reductions in entropy are not an issue. Massive reversals are. Pond slime to the human brain is gigantic, no mater how long it takes.

What is entropy, to you?

Apparently he thinks it's the magic bullet that kills evil evolutionists.

[Cyberman]

So does painting a face on it and calling it God get you any closer to finding what that cause was?

No. Is there another question?

Yes; two.

1) So what is the point?

2) Can you be any more condescending?