Theism vs Atheism - Shandon Guthrie vs Douglas Krueger

[MrWagman11]

God can not be proved to exist and can not be prove to not exist.

[Mogley52]

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real an eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).

[grizzlednutz]

the next step of debates is this: a winner should be declared at the end of every debate. the mediator should have a weighted vote and the crowd should be polled as to whom they think wins the debate, there is then declared a winner of the debate. similar to boxing.

[grizzlednutz]

wow, guthrie got destroyed this was hilarious.

[Mogley52]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE: If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. You didn't find fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

[chuckwagon1645]

@Mogley52 You present a flawed analogy here.You contrast the design of the sand castle to something NOT designed such as the sand around it. For you to prove that the universe was designed you would have to demonstrate that this universe would not look the same way had it been formed by natural means. Calling natural forces random is a misrepresentation of such phenomenon. Such forces are well understood by science. We can predict them to some degree. They have verifiable patterns.

[Mogley52]

NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE

[chuckwagon1645]

@Mogley52 What difference does it make if SOME evolutionists disagree with the consensus? Most however DO agree. We will never know things with any ABSOLUTE certainty. It is about probability. Evolution most likely did occur. The majority of the scientific community accepts that as fact. HOW evolution occurred is the subject of debate. Not whether it DID happen at all.

[1empathy]

If theists ever agree which god they worship and how, i might take them seriously.

[deshaebeasley]

atheism and theism hold opposite views on the multiverse level. Atheism with the belief that things get more and more simple (evolution of universes). Maybe outside this universe their are less laws like gravity here is universal law and numbers. Theist believe that things get more and complex.. until we reach a complexity so great that we cant even comprehend its beginning.

[grandconjunct]

Thanks for posting this , I emailed infidel guy Reggie back in 2007 asking him if I could post this same audio in this video above and he told me No!

After the spanking Krueger recieved it is obvious why :)

[madnegro69]

All I know is Athiest people talk down on people who believe in the truth. And the truth is God is real. All these dumb athiest people can suck cock. Really they are stupid and dumb. Hitchens got all you dumb crackers brainwashed.

[MardukHail]

What neither mentioned is that there is evidence for the multiverse theory and no evidence for the infinite all powerful primate theory. There is no beginning or end. Energy is matter as Einstein showed. So energy turns into universes and end as abruptly as they begin. This forming and destroying never begins or ends. It is simply the fluxuation of a timeless energy field. No primate god needed.

[othellopiano]

unanalytical atheists suffering from belief biases that are convinced that Krueger did a good job.

[cincyblows]

What's the point of atheism? That no matter how hard you try to do anything in life, once you die there's nothing? And since atheists are in the habit of bashing religious folk, whatv does that say about their reasoning and time management skills? That they're willing to waste precious minutes of their very short lifespans to express hatred for those who believe in religion? Hardly a rational way to budget time when you have almost none.

[GMunny5]

@cincyblows "atheists are in the habit of bashing religious folk, what does that say about their reasoning and time management skills?"

Surely you would agree that this statement does not hold for all atheists.

At any rate, imagine if all of your loved ones & 90% of the population believed in *trans-dimensional, sky-scrapper, universe building invisible pixies on a basis of no evidence. Would you consider it a waste of time to attempt to open their eyes to rationality?

This is why we "bash"..

[memphisn8]

This is perhaps the best philosophical debate about theism that I have ever heard. As of this point, Krueger has the better argument. Why is it cut short?

[memphisn8]

Krueger Win!!!

[jaqzzzz]

Rock Onz:)

"There are only two ways of living. One is as if nothing is a miracle. The second is that everything is a miracle, I believe in the latter." ---- Albert Einstein

"I used to be a atheist, till I thought I was God." --- John Lennon

[flubno]

If there are multipule universe's. That would mean the Big bang might just be a mundane event. You don't have to think something came from nothing, if other universes were floating around before the big bang. Each universe would have it's own physics. There also might be failed universes. Would each universes have it's own God ?

[flubno]

Regilious people believe in a super wizzard that created everything , use it's magic mind powers. Atheists believe in evolution & the Big Bang. Both are very incomplete ! Humans have been on earth about 200 thousands years and that's the only theories we have ? I'm alittle embarassed thats all we got. We should be further along. At least atheists don't look at the universe & life thru Rose colored glasses. Alittle bit more realistic, and that's how i like it. Theism is a bit more primative.

[BlueShark20201]

@flubno A super wizard?Really.I thought it was God.What new religon believes in this super wizard?No historic documents going back more than ten thousand years.

[flubno]

@BlueShark20201 Well what is God ? A single creature , with the powers to create the universe out of nothing. How, by using magic. That is a wizzard. I just want to make the point that people's concept of a creator is primative and a bit to simplistic, almost childish.

[BlueShark20201]

@flubno Well you just defeated you own argument.He does use power thats what makes Him God.How do you say people who believe in God is childish when others believe that evolution is true.You you could apply that theory to the big bang.Nothing created nothing.The big bang is a foolish theory all around to suggest that an explosing would create and not destroy.What explosion have you seen create something and not destroy?

[flubno]

@BlueShark20201 I was making fun of the belief of a magican that created the universe. Thats why i put it in those terms. As far as energy goes, mass is just energy vibrating slowly. Mass is a by product of energy. I can make a rock apear out of thin air, the size of my fist. But I would need the energy of about 9 atomic bombs to do it. These are all Albert Enstein theories, try looking it up & it will explain better than I can.

[flubno]

@BlueShark20201 Also, im atheist and i don't know any atheist that thinks the universe came from nothing. If you keep up with your science, the universe came from some kind of energy. The only place I hear people say you believe the universe came from nothing, comes from christians. I gues they think if you dont believe in God than you think the universe came from nothing. I never heard a atheist say that. They are just puting words in our mouths.

[BlueShark20201]

@flubno Well then you would have the ongoing arguement of where did that energy come from and so on.The thing is I am not anti atheist but I am against distorting facts.People should choose either to be taught Creation or evolution i think you would agree.You don't seem like an idiot.I would agree most atheists are educated but the Bible has a different point of view.I am not for all religons such as Islam and Catholicism but this is America.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 People should also be able to choose whether to be taught about biological human reproduction or stork theory. Using your logic, both concepts are equally valid.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 No they are not.Why are you telling me what I said.Clearly we agree on that issue.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 You said that creationism and evolution are equally valid. I disagree--they are as different as teaching biological human reproduction (the one accepted by science) versus stork theory. Or another example, teaching that the theory of a geocentic solar system (there are those that believe that) is as valid as a heliocentric solar system (the one that science teaches). Creationism hasn't even attained theory status.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 Well we agree that people should believe what they want.I did not say evolution and creation are equal.Evolution is a lie in my opinion.We can go back to the big bang.How do explosions create and not destroy?You see in bombs the mess they leave.How can people say the big bang created the universe?Creationism does not use theory that I am aware of.They use science and Biblical evidence.Evolution uses theories and science.Theories that contradict the Bible.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 Evolution is as much a scientific fact as gravity. Evolution and the Big Bang are two completely different things. Creation is not a theory, that is, it is rejected by science and has no merit whatsoever. I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is. Biblical evidence? No scientific evidence comes from any text. If a theory that is valildated and accepted contradicts that bible, so be it.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 Wait a minute.The big bang is considered a basis a foundation for evolution.If you reject the big bang you cannot support evolution.You just said evolution is fact.Well why has no one seen evolution occur?You need billions of years fine.Evolution however has not been proven a fact like you say.Evolution cannot be tested it is just a theory.How did the universe come into existence?In your opinion.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 No--wrong again. Evolution is an explanation of how higher life forms have developed over time. The big bang is cosmology and has nothing to do with evolution. It has been seen, uncounted times. Everytime a virus mutates, becomes more resistant to a vaccine for example, that is evolution. Absolute certainty is hard to come by. Science changes with new information. You don't know what a theory is. Gravity is just a theory (google it). IDK how the universe came to be.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 Well here it what I am saying.I deny the theory of man and ape having a common ancestor.I am not saying evolution is impossible.I am sure it take place with germs.However i believe God created the universe.There can obly be a few ways the universe came into existence.Either God created it or the big bang theory.What else is there?

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 What I'm saying is that creationism isn't even a theory. The Big Bang is the leading contender in the scientific community right now, but that could change--that's the beauty of science. I'm not sure the universe even came into existence--maybe it just always was. As for humans and apes sharing a common ancestor, the preponderance of science disagrees with you. Could science be wrong? Sure. But I'll take antibiotics over prayer any day.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 The universe was not always there.There had to be a start.It did not just exist that is crazy.Whats wrong with appling God into science.Why are people so fast to object it?

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 "The universe was not always there." How do you know that? You'd probably say the god has always been, didn't need a beginning--if one, why not the other? God is not applied to science because no one has demonstrated gods exist. What's wrong with applying leprechans into science? In the entire history of mankind there has not been a single solitary documented, verifiable occurence of the supernatural. Not. One.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 Don't be absurd.Comparing God with santa or fake characters is ridiculous.God said He has always been.Thats why He said he is eternal.Gods existence can be simply applied to science by using His creation as evidence.Why hasent anyone even attempted this?Its quite obvious some people don't want God.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 So you are saying that god is a special exception--everything has a beginning except god. That called special pleading. It's quite obvious some people cannot provide evidence of their claims--in this case evidence for a god--despite repeated requests. If the existence can be applied, apply it. Prove what you repeatedly assert.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 The only proof that will be provided is the Bible.However it is not just a book but the Bible itself claims to be God's Word.I can give you Bible verses but I don't think you would even bother.I cannot scientifically prove it of course.If it could be scientifically proven everyone would believe in God.However the Bible speaks for itself.It says man must hear God's Word in order to strengthen their faith.In simple terms the Bible says man must hear Biblical preaching to believe.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 The bible does speak for itself--I don't think that helps your argument--(I've read it cover to cover). If someone wants me to believe a claim, they have to supply good evidence for it, no matter what the claim. A holy book that no one knows who wrote or when is useless as evidence for me. Others might find it convincing, I do not. I appreciate your honesty and politeness--you don't always get that in these discussions, as I'm sure you can--dare I say it? Testify.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 Well,you said no one knows the authors.That is suprising you said that.The authors are written in the books they wrote.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 Buy a bible concordance--the vast majority of christian scholars argee that no one knows who actually wrote them. We do know this: not one person, including church fathers quote from any of the gospels until after the year 180--there are no original copies--there are no early copies written in hebrew--odd, if the authors were jewish--all the earliest copies are in koine greek and aramaic, and there is not one contemporary reference in all of history to jesus outside the bible.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 Interesting,I will do research.However,this does not quickly change how I believe.Question all things to see what is true.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 I couldn't agree more on the questioning point.  Jefferson said "Question boldly the very existence of god." (paraphrased).

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 In my opinion if God is not real,what reason does man have?Although people can benefit without all the bad religons too.In the big picture man is hopeleess without God.In my opinion.Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.Honesty is the best policy.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 I've never understood the idea that with a god, our lives are meaningless. In fact, doesn't it make our lives even more precious and beautiful, if this is all we get? The notion that there is ultimate cosmic justice is appealing--but as we all know, life is not fair. The meaning you assign to your life is for you to find--I find mine in my family, my friends, helping the less fortunate, the beauty of mozart or shakespeare. I don't have a god and I'm not hopeless at all.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 In my opinion,if God is not real there is no purpose.That does not mean freinds wont be less fun.However if God is not real,atheists win.They win because they don't have to spend one second in hell.Which is good for anyone,Hell is unimaginable.Even if there was no Heaven escaping Hell would be worth avoiding."Titus 1:2 God cannot lie."I believe that.Religon is not bad,until religon starts forcing people to convert.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 It sad you think its about winning and losing. I think its about what can be show to be true and what can't. Shouldn't hell be for bad people, not people that don't believe? Ghandi didn't believe in Jesus--does that mean he is in hell? Hitler was an altar boy and was never excommunicated. If he sincerely asked Jesus for forgiveness, doesn't that mean he is in heaven? I can't believe in something that no one has ever shown to exist.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 Not nesessarily,according to the Bible you go to a place whether or not you believe.You don't have to agree with that.It is just what it says.It is up to you what you choose to believe,but remember don't ingore anything even if it does not seem true.The devil is clever in his works.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 Since we haven't established that the bible is true, it really doesn't matter what it says. Nor has the existence of a devil, or hell, or any of these claims. I deal in reality. Until good reason for believing something is given, you shouldn't believe it. I bet you use critical thinking skills on every other aspect of your life, except where religion is concerned.  Inexplicably, the fantastic claims get a pass. I've never understood why, Do you believe the koran is true?

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 No,mohammed is their only claim and author.The quran also has no fulfilled prophecies.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 Actually, millions of Muslims believe the quran has fulfulled prophecies, just as you believe the bible does. And neither belief addresses how the prophecies were fullfilled, if you believe they were.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 You may view the Bible as a false book.Thats is fine,I am not one to punish atheist for their beliefs,its a free country.The reason why I believe the Bible.Is because it has many fulfilled prophecies.Why ignore the N.T.?The apostles claim to have been with Jesus.I investigate religons,and find out why they should be believed.

[BiffWhitebread13]

@BlueShark20201 If someone makes a prediction in the first part of a book (OT), then someone comes along later and reads that, then writes that what the predicted happened (NT), and the only evidence we have that it happened is what the second person wrote, that isn't much of a prophecy. If jesus rose from the dead and appeared to 500 people, why doesn't anybody outside of the bible mention it? There is not one contemporary account of jesus. Not one. That includes the bible.

[BlueShark20201]

@BiffWhitebread13 I am not sure I follow.You are saying that a book written by a previous author would be picked up and read by another author,and he would lie about the prophecy?I don't know about historic facts written outside the Bible,simply because I havn't looked for it.I don't entirely really need it though,but if you want I will research for some.I can give you some prophecies and you can see if you believe it as a legit prophecy?

[flubno]

@BlueShark20201 Yes this is america, you can believe what you want. I personally don't care much about creation or evolution. But i do favor evoltion. There is a voice in the back of my head that tells me they are probably both wrong. Humans aren't smart enough to figure out the universe yet. Charles Darwin once said, " All we have to go on are a couple of vauge ideas." Most religions were born back in the stone ages & scientists have only begun to scratch the surface of whats really out there.

[BlueShark20201]

@flubno Have you ever thought why humans don't have accecs to all of their brain?I have why can't man have all the answers?The only things man is left to believe is God and science in my opinion.If evolution is true man will eventually access all of his brain.If God is real then God purposingly made man to not know everything.I believe God is true.Why would God make man not to know everything is the question.

[Donnievil]

@flubno interesting that you say that theists look through rose colored glasses since all Krueger really said was, "I don't like it" through the whole debate. his opinion is really nothing but opinion based on false premised empiricism and logical positivism. his responses were child like and never went beyond simply giving full authority to his presuppositions. And atheism is actually quite primitive.

[flubno]

@Donnievil Atheism might be primative but they are few notches ahead of religious people.

[Donnievil]

@flubno That's an assertion, not a fact. Let's look at some commonly held atheist beliefs: everything came from nothing with no cause; the universe started with a breakdown of all the laws of physics (supernatural); there is no creator but there is a basis for reason, logic, morals, rights and purpose; matter is eternal...these don't look like good notches to me!

[BiffWhitebread13]

@Donnievil Funny you should mention assertions. You clearly know little about atheism. Everything came from nothing? I don't know anyone that thinks that. I'd be happy to look at any evidence you have for a creator. There is a basis for reason, logic, rights and purpose--which can basically be boiled down to the golden rule. I don't want to be stolen from, so I don't steal. I want the right to free speech--the cost of that right is that everyone else gets the exact same right, etc.

[Donnievil]

@BiffWhitebread13 I didn't say all atheists believed something came from nothing, although some examples come to mind. The big bang involves either 1) something from nothing or 2) an eternal universe. Frankly, neither is tenable. You can't have a golden rule because that takes a golden rule-maker. You are saying that you behave in a certain way because you are afraid others would do the same to you. If no fear of reprisal, what basis for morality? And what does that have to do with reason et al?

[BiffWhitebread13]

@Donnievil I don't know how the universe started, if it did. The existence of a creator requires an eternal creator, but you say that the universe can't be eternal. That's special pleading. Why does the golden rule require a golden rule maker? I do the right thing because we have to coexist--and because it is the right thing to do--not because I fear punishment.

[flubno]

@Donnievil you are a wierd dude, you must not know any atheists. i think the universe came from some form of energy, Logic & reason are the only tools we have against ancient darkness and superstitions, and ignorance. break down of laws/ phyisics, eternal matter ? I dont know what your talking about. I dont think people are a special creature in the universe. Human morality doesn't prove that there is or isn't a God. It doesn't prove anything super natural.

[Donnievil]

@flubno Lawrence Krauss has stated that the universe spontaneously arose from nothing and has speculated that the sum total of the universe is nothing. I would posit that I am probably more familiar with what atheists say than you are, evidently. Logic and reason are tools. great. Where did they come from?Big bang=singularity. Singularity-a point at which the known laws of physics break down. Look it down in a physics book.

[Twilightifyable]

Atheism is a Religion, because you believe, you have faith there is no God without proof. When you die, it is only then you see the truth.

Go back to the definition of faith. Faith is believing in something without proof. Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism is defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Therefore Atheism is a religion.

[OWC2000]

@Twilightifyable You definition of atheism is wrong and so is your conclusion. As an atheist I will not define someone's religious beliefs, so please show me the same consideration and not define my non-belief.on,

No atheist believes atheism is a dogma or religion, so it is dishonest of you to assign those values to it. By your criteria not believing in unicorns, pixies, Santa Claus would also be a religion.

[Twilightifyable]

@OWC2000

.

I got my definition from Merriam-Webster.

[OWC2000]

@Twilightifyable Utter nonsense, you made it up, Webster says no such thing.

[pyr666]

@Twilightifyable

only if you have ties to an anti-toothfarian religion, the anti-alien religion, and the non-lizard-overlord religion

[DLando]

First we must answer the question if there is a God or Designer, the conclusion points to a God or Designer who created this universe and life. The next logical question is which God is real, after discovering the real God then we can answer the rest of the questions after that like why God allows sufffering etc. My conclusion points to Jesus Christ as the Son of God and His Father is our Father the true God.

[OWC2000]

@DLando The conclusion points to nothing of the sort. The current conclusion is that we don't know, yet. However you can not name one example of a god being a conclusion over scientific principles, so if anything, the conclusion points to a natural origin not a supernatural one.

To claim otherwise, as you do, is pure fantasy and lacks both logic, intellectual honesty and/or credibility.

[DLando]

@OWC2000 You may not know but many others know, it is a foregone conclusion and a manifest conclusion that God or Designer created the universe and made it possible for life to exist. You have only two arguments to help your cause, make that one, I take that back too, make that none!

[OWC2000]

@DLando It is not about what 'you' think you know, but about what you can prove. You can not prove this supernatural immaterial god, you only wish it to be true as do these many others you refer to.

To claim 'I' only have two/one/no arguments is just meaningless hyperbole and the sign of a closed mind. Please enjoy your god, but until you can distinguish between immaterialism and imagination your conclusions are deluded.

I might suggest you research Michaels Persinger's 'god helmet'.

[DLando]

@OWC2000 Where would science and modern inventions be without imagination. Man has been given intellect, a mind that can think, reason, discover, create and apply knowlege that is why it is natural to assume that there is a God who created all things, history bears this out. Therefore it is unnatural not to believe in a god, Naturalist or Atheism are not really natural. Closed minded? not me, I am in awe, reverence, hope, peace and yes joy and gladness of my God. How about you?

[TheFaithHunter]

Kruerger wasnt letting Guthrie finish any thought or sentence.

[OWC2000]

This is just theistic special pleading. Until theists can quantify the difference between immmaterialism and imagination they they can not claim to have any knowledge of a god.

[HolyRevelation]

Nature, ie the universe, coded information and life are all effect created by some greater cause other than themselves.

Nothing can create itself, everything that begins to exist must have an external cause. Theists have science on there side because science proves that life only comes from life.

If Atheists could provide one scientific experiment demonstrating how life can originate from non-life, THEN evolution would be science instead of wishful thinking.

[Dexiclecom]

Shandon was impressive. Douglas basically assumed naturalism then used that assumption as a way to counter all of Shandon's points. Of course if naturalism is true god does not exist. Basically Douglass just used circular reasoning.

[GMunny5]

Atheism is clearly the more rational position; there is no contest.

Atheism - hmm, i don't know how the universe came to be, therefore i'll remain skeptical while productively seeking truth.

Deism - I don't know how this came to be, therefore a god did it; though i can't demonstrate this in any way.

Theism - Not only was a God responsible, but my preferred personal God who cares who you have sex with, and wants to regulate our thoughts...

[regelemihai]

@GMunny5

Try "hmm, maybe it is logically and scientifically possible that nothingness can create everything."

I'd say deists and theists are far more rational than anyone who affirms such a logically incoherent claim.

[GMunny5]

@regelemihai "it is logically and scientifically possible that nothingness can create everything."

If that's what you believe atheism affirms, you simply harbor a misconception. In fact, atheism suggests absolutely nothing about one's belief outside the existence of God(s). One can be an atheist, yet not hold to this notion of a universe from nothingness...

For Instance, an atheist can believe the universe always was, or if there was causation; it was through natural means, not supernatural...

[TheYAHnitarian]

@GMunny5 The problem with what you said is that scientists state that the universe DID have a beginning & didn't always exist. There is vast amounts of evidence for this. So, if atheists can believe the universe always was, as you said, then those atheists are doing the opposite of what you claim, & avoiding scientific fact. Science also cannot figure out what could cause the beginning of the universe. The "Singularity" is the name placed on the "I don't know" so its your view that is irrational

[GMunny5]

@TheYAHnitarian "scientists state that the universe DID have a beginning & didn't always exist"

What scientists? (select scientists isn't the same as the majority of the scientific community) What theory or hypothesis are you even referring to?

Just incase your referring to the big bang theory, that is not an explanation to the beginning of the universe. In fact, everything prior to the big bang remains unknown...

[GMunny5]

@regelemihai "deists and theists are far more rational"

To reach the most rational of standpoints; one must take into consideration the fact deism and theism accept a single explanation as truth while refraining from further scrutiny (not to mention the accept this answer without any slight empirical evidence)

deists/theists accept one explanation. Atheists don't accept any claim without evidence, therefore productively seeking truth. There is no given explanation atheists are inclined to accept

[regelemihai]

@GMunny5

Atheists are inclined to accept the most outrageous and illogical conclusions so long as they avoid a theistic one. We do have evidence that points overwhelmingly towards an absolute beginning of the universe. That is as "empirical" as it gets. Either that event was caused or it wasn't; there's no wiggle room here. If you claim, as some atheists do, that the universe caused itself, or that nothingness did, then you are in no way more rational than a theist.

[OWC2000]

@regelemihai There is no evidence for an 'absolute' beginning to this universe, just a beginning probably from the entropy of a previous universe (see Roger Penrose).

causation is a product of space/time which began with the big-bang, so the universe does not need a cause.

To assume nothing exists is the fallacy of theistic argument. It has never been show that 'nothing' exists and is the default.

[regelemihai]

@OWC2000

The low level entropy makes it all the more probable that the universe is finite, not infinite. Indeed, the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems put an end to the propspect of cyclical-infinite models. I dunno what you've been reading, but the evidence for the BB is by far the best and more substantiated theory we have today. Spacetime trajectory cannot be extended beyond a boundry of a singularity.

Causation is a product of spacetime?! A cause for spacetime is not...

[regelemihai]

...spacetime itself! That makes absolutely no sense. Spacetime didn't create itself. It is finite.

I'd be intersted to learn more about why saying that nothingness cannot create something is absurd. Seems to me the other way around. Nothing existed prior to the BB, a fact that Hawking mentions not only in A Brief History of Time, but in The Nature of Space and Time as well.

Like I said, you're inclined to adopt even the most incoherent of all propositions so long as it avoids God.

[OWC2000]

@regelemihai Penrose's latest work theorizes (using background radiation) that this universe is cyclically 'born' from a previous rendition and will give way to a new universe.

I never claimed that space/time created itself, only that S/T is required for creation.

The most incoherent proposition is god because it defies and reverses the logical progression of the expanding universe: Everything we understand about the universe shows complexity increasing, not decreasing (as with god).

[OWC2000]

@regelemihai If the universe exists, then 'nothing' can not. For there to be a universe (or anything), the potential for that universe (or thing) must have always 'existed', otherwise it could not have come about: So therefore nothing can only 'exist' if it contains the potential for this universe (thing); Which in itself is not 'nothing'.

[regelemihai]

@OWC2000

Again, it makes no sense. If the potential always existed, why didn't the universe? Furthermore, of the cause is sufficient, the effect would always be present. What we observe is not that, though. The universe came into being; it's not infinite. Not only is actual infinity logically impossible, it's incompatible with the scientific evidence we possess.

Plus, the conclusion doesn't follow. Since we have "something" nothing could've never existed? Doesn't make sense.

[OWC2000]

@regelemihai This universe certainly came into being, but what of a previous universe, etc?. Maybe the 'universe' has always existed, just not in its present form (1st law of Thermo.) which is consistent with what we observe and Penrose theorizes. As long as there has been existence, the potential for this universe must have existed.

You question a infinite regressive universe (despite suggested evidence), but willingly & without reservation grant god an infinite existence. Doesn't make sense.

[regelemihai]

"but what of a previous universe."

Well, like I said, there was no previous universe if we conisder what we know. A cyclical model was abandoned 40 years ago witht the advent of the singularity theorems. You can't extend the spacio-temporal realm beyond a singularity.

Not to mention, as I said before, an actual infinity of things cannot exist. The universe must be finite even IF you can show that there was a previous stage to it.

As for your second point...

[regelemihai]

...actual inifnites cannot exist, and an infinite regression would've never allowed for the present moment to come, which is evidently false. God is not material therefore His existance is not in time.

[OWC2000]

@regelemihai A previous universe is just what Penrose is theorizing and a singularity does not dispel this in any way; The singularity only explains this universe, not others. Where does the matter from a black hole go if not to a singularity?

Infinity is a concept of time, and like most things may have had a beginning (as did space/time), but not necessarily an end. Speculation is good, but ultimately we must conclude that we just don't know (yet) and must remain skeptical of all claims.

[regelemihai]

@OWC2000

Penrose in no way is theorizing that there was a previous stage to the universe. He is one of the key proponents that battled this very theory that was promulgated by the Russians. If you're talking about a multiverse that is a different matter.

[OWC2000]

@regelemihai Sorry, but in his latest book that is exactly what he is saying, using background radiation, he theorizes that a previous rendition of the universe existed and that our universe will 'collapse' due to massive black hole evapouration and give rise to another aeon.

[regelemihai]

@OWC2000

I'd like to see a direct quote because this seems odd for him to invoke a cyclical model when he is one of the most vociforous critics of it. Also the "collapse" refering toa big crunch goes against the evidence we have the universe will undergo expansion until maximum entropy is reached.

There is no evidence to suggest that there was a previous stage to this universe. The CMBR in no way demonstrates it.

[OWC2000]

@regelemihai I can not do the research for you, only you can do that. His new book is "cycles of time" and there are numerous articles, papers and interviews, including you-tube that cover the basics. Good hunting.

I really do not know how you claim that there is no evidence to a previous stage to the universe when you have not researched Penrose's work "You're inclined to adopt even the most incoherent of all propositions so long as it avoids SCIENCE"

[regelemihai]

@OWC2000

You don't need to do the research, I just asked for a quote. I'm not doing this to piss you off it just seems odd to me as someone who read almost all of Hawking's works that he shoudl now advocate a cyclical model. That's all.

I will research Penrose. He may have interpretations I'm assuming of the current data, but there hasn't been any new evidence to suggest what you're suggesting. By far the best evidence we DO have points to an absolute beginning.

[OWC2000]

@regelemihai Quotes are of politicians and philosophers, scientists publish papers. Penrose first paper on cyclical universe was 2006. Hawkins interests lies in black-holes and quantum fluctuations. No evidence we have points to an ABSOLUTE beginning, only a beginning and Penrose's work does nothing to dispel this.

A position of Absolute is not scientific, just pure ignorant hubris. No matter how much we may think we know we can never claim absolute about anything and certainly not in science.

[regelemihai]

@OWC2000

I repeat, if what you're attempting to do is to repudiate the notion that the beginning of this universe is not absolute by claiming that ours is just one of many, then that's a different matter. If, on the other hand, you're trying to extend the existance of our universe backwards in time, then it's simply not scientific. The singularity is there for a reason. As for there being no evidence for this, I'd behhove you to research this topic more closely.

The hubris belongs to...

[regelemihai]

...those who also claim with certainity that the position they criticize is false. N'est pas? If my holding firmly to a competing scientific position brands me "ignorant," then I dunno what it makes you.

As I said before, the absolute beginning is the best attested theory we have. Other exotic theories proposed have no foundation in the current data we have. They are extrapolations at best. The CMBR, the galactic red shift, the theorems we have as well as other things point...

[regelemihai]

...overwhelmingly to an absolute beginning.

Philosophically speaking, even if some kind of thery would breach through the singualrity, it would not avoid the required absolute beginning as actual infinites cannot exist in reality-- the universe cannot regress into the infinite. It's a logical incoherence.

[OWC2000]

@regelemihai You are kidding, right? The research is there but you seem unable or unwilling to look at it.

Until you do there is no point in continuing this conversation.

[regelemihai]

@OWC2000

I keep appealing to it, but you seem to cherry pick only what you deem is sound, or what seems to back your atheistic worldview. There is no point in continuing when you ignore every point that is brought up against you.

Face it; the best evdience we have points to an abssolute beginning--both logically and experimentally. Holding to the view that nature can create itself is silly, to say the least.

Be open to other perspectives. I always am.

[regelemihai]

@OWC2000

A black hole is a singualrity, I know that. Information isn't channeled through it, though, which is what Susskind made Hawking concede. The matter that is sucked into it doesn't go to a different region of spacetime.

[YeshuaisLord100]

Wow...very impressed with Shandon. What are his credentials?