@Tobytrim Victory is apparently being absolutely roflstomped at every turn. I seriously don't even care about anybody trying to argue against Hitchens in Youtube comments. They would be destroyed if they were to attempt to argue against him, had he be here today.
@TygerShumate Yes, I noticed. But frankly, these arguments of Tureks have died the death on YouTube too. Hitchens' take on them is simply a bonus to those who enjoy the art of demeaning ownage!
Ask the following question from A muslim.The question: Assume a religion is made which says : Muslims are worse than animals , bastards ,must pay jiziyah ( 50% extra tax ) , must be subdued and killed and their wives raped .
Ask them then: Is such a religion evil and must be eradicated or not ?
None of them ( Muslims) will answer this question and run like rats to hide in their holes. Why ? cuz :
The above are quranic teachings. I just changed the word non-muslim to muslim. Try it
Dara O'briain said it quite nicely: "Well science KNOWS it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop."
Hitchens is right, we're not the ones that need to answer how something comes from nothing, because we know that we don't know, and are still in the process of trying to find out. YOU are the one that suggests that they do know.
@VampirePraemium And if you want to lose your Hitchens fervour, watch him get thrashed by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.
Hitch was a good journalist and a good speaker; but he was never an academic and when he came up against real Christian academics (with expertise in historical Jesus studies, the classic philosophical arguments for the Christian God and the empirical evidence for design in the Universe) he came badly unstuck
@relarerfhjk Speaking as one, I don't think I'd elevate academics to quite the lofty position you do across the board. Theologians are well trained in certain concentrated areas, but all you need do is watch a classically trained philosopher go at it with an equally well-trained neuropsychologist to see an almost awe-inspiring gulf between universes of discourses. Hitchens was well and broadly educated, voraciously inquisitive, and no less informed for being an autodidact later on.
@manthasagittarius1 Philosophy and science are certainly different (equally useful and mutually dependent) disciplines,but Hitch doesnt get the arguments at all, as was painfully obvious against Dr Craig.
Craig exposed his arguments against God's existence as fallacies (i.e saying impending Heat Death proves the Universe wasnt designed, when finite duration doesnt disprove design) while Hitch couldnt refute 1 of the positive arguments for God (and misunderstood most of them)
@relarerfhjk Speaking as one, I don't think I'd elevate academics to quite the lofty position you do across the board. Theologians are well trained in certain concentrated areas, but all you need do is watch a classically trained philosopher go at it with an equally well-trained neuropsychologist to see an almost awe-inspiring gulf between universes of discourses. Hitchens was well and broadly educated, voraciously inquisitive, and no less informed for being an autodidact later on.
thinking of it in an unbiased way, religious people will never win a debate against people using reason, its impossible. because the nature of a debate is to deduce what we know from the issue at hand.
CONTINUED FROM BELOW: that it is a mathematically probability that we are simulations living in a 2d universe with the third and 4th dimensions (space/ time) coming from inside our own minds. The probability that we are simulations lends one to then conclude that there is indeed a GOD. Probably not a old dude with a huge white beard in robes holding a staff, but a creator non-the-less. Hell, we don't even know what Gravity is. (It's actually an illusion btw)
I like this Hitchen's dude, but he zeroes in too much on Christianity. And I am sorry, but he does need to provide evidence of his POV. I am not aware of a single instance of something coming from nothing. Hawkins was able to use a "trick" of math to extrapolate this possibility. Fact is, there is a even larger growing mass of evidence that we are indeed living in a holographic universe, even possibly living in a simulation. One could even claim (accurately) ... Continued....
@Ledwix im not agreeing with a christian stance, but just pointing out a flaw in your logic. you never choose to be born, yet here you are, true. but your parents made a choice to have a child.
GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GGO HITCHIE BABY GO! O! GO HITCHIE BABY GO!
Why is another Theist comparing god to a man made object again? You'd think they would use what they always say god has created, like animals, trees, and our planet. He does himself a great disservice by making analogies of clearly man made objects like a typewriter or the famous watch on a beach analogy. When you say something must have a cause you give up the right to say god doesn't have a creator. When you say something that is complex needs a creator you can't say god was not created.
We don't know if there was a beginning of the universe all we know is that there was a finite past of expansion for the universe and 13.72 billion years ago there was a point at which this universe was so densely packed that the ability for any of our terestrial methods of inquiry to summarize what happened, completely fall to bits. These are called the Big Bang Expansion and the Big Bang Singularity.
That answer should have fucking shut Turek up!!! xXx
@dantrizz I really do not understand why we still tend to state that the universe came from nothing. We do not know this. We know there was a Big Bang. We do not know what caused this, so it seems odd to me to state it was caused from nothing. I believe the Big Bang is the effect of a cause. Just like everything else we found in nature.
@bukifuriku I have to agree with your comment there mate! If you combine this concept with Hawking's no boundary theory, then you literally have a logical account of the universe without any need for an intelligent designer. I think Hitchen's point in this video though, is absolutely fantastic. Science has never claimed to know what happened before the Big Bang. Religion has. We can't go around expecting people to know thinks they don't claim too. It's like asking a baby to fix your car!
@christophcooneyoff Thank you for pointing me to the Hawking theory, I will spend my afternoon to investigating it :) I also agree with you, how can anyone expect an explaination from someone who is not claiming anything :D Hitchens states he can not gives the explaination, and he does not know of anyone who can. Christians think to 'know' but that is an unjustified claim. A belief. And they cannot provide evidence as a result.
@bukifuriku Oh Hawking's theory will bend your mind but when the penny drops, you'll realise how cool it is! And yeah, that is the interesting gap between Religion and Science. Whenever science makes a claim, it has to provide mounds of evidence, obvious patterns and complex mathematics to justify the conclusion. When religion makes a claim, it quotes a near 2000 year old book, and seems to think that'll do the trick. We're playing by different rules!
Concousness and God are the same thing. God created the universe by thinking the universe into existence and as a result, the universe responds to thought. Read the book the Secret!
@shatner99 forget cults and religion, the question here is "There is a Creator or not". Life was created or not. But atheists only talk about religion and the Spaguetti Monster
nature made also aquariums and terrariums? 50.000 years ago the earth was a jungle, in 6000 years humans have technology and went to the moon. Obviously humans are aliens or made by an alien God.
This universe is bound by laws and restrictions...there must be a law-giver...humans and plants work in perfect harmony...how did we both evolve together? here is a man (hitchens) who enduldges in life's pleasures..he drinks,smokes, wishes death on peole and has taken part in homosexal acts by his own admission...im now judging this man ...but is he a moral compass or authority on the matter?
@relarerfhjk But we don´t want to kill the stupid cunt because we disagree, that´s where you and I probably disagree huh? We all know how open minded fucking christians have been, the cemeteries are full of it.
The non-religious guy is a bit of a twat, continuall interupting the other guy and stuff. Not a good way to engage in a debate at all. On the other hand, I think that it is ridiculous and vain to assume that, as tiny animals on one planet in the universe, we could possibly somehow know the means of the universes creation.There's no reason to discount some creative force forming the universe, but to think we could understand it is probably stupid.There's no reason this "force" has to defy science
@o0WithAllYourMind0o The point is that we don't know and we're currently working on figuring it out. Theists, on the other hand, claim they know already but have yet to prove it.
Actually a better response I think would have been as follows:
1) We don't yet know what was before the big bang, so no comment.
2) If god created the universe, then it is implied that he was there before it was created, but that begs the question of who created god and spirals out of control into an infinite regress, so its a null hypothesis. (explains nothing)
3) What we do know is that the data suggests that 13.8 billion years ago everything was on top of itself.
Wrong. That's what we call honesty. List the evidence and interpret it honestly... aka without adding any spiritual drivel... aka religious mumbo-jumbo.
@imigrant00 says "We don't yet know what was before the big bang". Then why atheists are 100% sure that there was no Creator? If you don't know why you close the possibility?
1)NOTHING was "before" ,time came into being with the Big Bang!
2) "who created god" :you dont have to be able to explain the best explanation;even if we cant explain the architect,the house was still designed! There must be an uncaused First Cause of everything (or there's no cuase of anything) so Gods a necessary being,(not a contingent one)so doesnt depend on anything else for His existence:
Time came into being with the Universe,so whatever caused it is timeless!
"you dont have to be able to explain the best explanation" Looked up the definition of an explanation lately? How can god be an explanation when nothing is explained. The creation of the universe is still a mystery.
God is about as necessary to explain the origin of the Universe as 9/11 truthers are necessary to discover what went down on September the 11th, 2001.
@imigrant00 You need to look up basic philosophy: you don't need to be able to explain an explanation otherwise science could explain nothing as there would be an infinite regress: if you found a spaceship, design would still be the best explanation of its existence,even if you couldnt explain its designers!!. Dawkins argument is a basic logical fallacy
"still a mystery" logic leads to the conlusion nature didnt create itself from nothing, the cause must be supernatural
What a deliciously stupid response. Before you can begin a discussion about anything you have to agree on definitions otherwise the conversation is meaningless. An explanation therefore is defined by something which divulges to us how something else occurs. Evolution's equations explain the diversity of species on Earth. Maxwell's equations explain how electricity behaves. God is a mystery, aka, a non-explanation. Thanks.
@imigrant00 Its delicious when someone tries to sound smart and trips up on and lands face-down in the mud, as you just have. "something which divulges to us how something occurs" Exactly... so if design best explains how something occured, you don't need to then be able to explain how the designer occured! For something to be the best explanation, you don't have to then be able to explain the explanation! Thats the whole point, you complete ignoramus.
A spaceship is something we are capable of designing so its logical to assume that a spaceship was designed by us or some being like us. Though life may appear designed you can't jump to the same conclusion as we are yet unaware of a process that can create life. I can say that life was created by the black hole in the galactic center. You cannot disprove that it wasn't, just like I can't disprove that your magician didn't, but that doesn't mean he did and it doesn't mean he exists
@imigrant00 The point, which you keep missing, because you got hung up on a spaceship,is that if we discovered anything, from an ancient structure, to a crashed saucer,design would stil be the best explanation of how that thing came to be, even if the designer was "a mystery" as you put it!
If we found a crashed ship on the Moon,but the designers were "a mystery" and we did not know where they came from,would that mean its parts just fell into place by chance?
What exactly are you calling god? If you mean the precise sequence of events that led to what we observe today and simplistically call "The Big Bang" then I'd say that I agree with you. But if you'll sit there and tell me that the Universe began by magic, and claim that you know the magician that did it, I'd have to call you on your bullshit. You have no source of information that's unavailable to me so stop pretending that you do. Thanks.
@imigrant00 There was no "sequence of events" causing the Universe,since time itself began with the Big Bang! "you have no source of information not available to me" Indeed, the information is available to veryone with their eyes open.
Basic logic shows something c annot come from nothing and, since everything in Nature, including time, had a beginning, the cause must be supernatural, timeless, immensely powerful and personal (since abstract timeless objects can't cause anything)
The big bang is the beginning of our universe as we currently understand it. That does not suggest nothing before it and it says nothing about the supernatural, immensely powerful and personal magician that you so lovingly imagine out of thin air. The truth is that we don't know what happened before that and to suggest that you do is to show how shallow minded and dishonest you're willing to be for your religion.
@imigrant00 "that does not suggest nothing before it"
Yes it does, are you totally clueles? Time itself was created with the Big Bang, so there was no "before it"! Physicists dont just say the Universe began to exist, the Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem shows ANY EXPANDING UNIVERSE must have an absolute beginning
That means everything in the natural world came from nothing; atheists have a simple choice, they believe everything popped, uncaused, out of nothing, or they believe in God
@SeedsOfHatred its not "by default" that we reach the conclusion it must be God, but by deductive logic. Everything in the natural world had a beginning, so nature cannot have "caused" itself to begin to exist!
Whatever caused Nature to exist must be supernatural, timeless (as time began to exist when the Universe did), very powerful (to create all space/time reality), extremely intelligent (to "fine-tune" the Universe for life) and personal (abstract objects cant cause anything)
@relarerfhjk That is precisely what I'm talking about. "Whatever caused Nature to exist must be supernatural". That is such a bold claim based on nothing at all. You're saying there simply HAS to be a God by default.
@SeedsOfHatred "that is such a bold claim based on nothing"
Iits not based on "nothing at all" just explained what its based on!!
its based on the twin premises that everything in Nature came into being, and that something cannot come into being, from nothing without cause: therefore, since Nature did not "cause" itself (because everything in Nature began to exist) it must have a supernatual First Cause
@relarerfhjk Says who? Why does it "have" to be supernatural? Over the decades, science has come to know more and more about this world, and with each new discovery, it's supernatural explanation is debunked. Why the Sun moves, why there are storms, why epileptics appear "possessed"; they've all been debunked as having perfectly scientific explanations. Not a single discovery in history has yielded a supernatural result. Not one.
What makes you think the "First Cause" is any different?
@SeedsOfHatred "why does it have to be supernatural" I explained this in a private message but shall explain it here for others to read. The cause must be supernatural because nothing in the natural world existed prior to the beginning of space/time reality! Everything, including time itself, had an absolute beginning. So, unless Nature popped uncaused out of nothing, the cause of Nature must be supernatural
@relarerfhjk (Part 2) The fact that we don't yet know what the "first cause" is does NOT mean that it is automatically supernatural. Based on what I've just said in my previous comment, it stands to reason that whatever the answer is, it will be perfectly scientific and perfectly natural. There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to believe that it will be supernatural. None.
Your argument that it "MUST be supernatural" is wrong. Flat-out, completely and totally wrong. Idiotic, even.
The argument is perfectly logical (impeccable, even), the conclusion follows inescapably from the premises: a) everything in the natural world came into being b) anything that comes into being must have a cause c) the cause of the natural world must be supernatural, timeless/spaceless (because space/time itself began to exist with the Universe), all-powerful ( to create an entire Universe) and personal (abstract objects cant "cause" anything)
@relarerfhjk Current evidence points that the universe did come from nothing, or at the very least could have. In Quantum Mechanics, whenever you have empty space, or to say space devoid of all matter and energy, you will get matter or energy in it. Nothingness itself has energy.
Professor Laurence Krauss did a wonderful lecture on it. Simply do a search for "A Universe from Nothing". He also has a book with the same name that I am sure will answer many of your curious quandaries.
You have made a basic error,common among those untutored in these arguments. Its false to equivocate empty space/the quantum vacuum with "nothingness", the quantum vacuum is a rich sea of energy with physical structure, governed by physical laws so it isnt an example of something coming from nothing:
whereas when we say nothing existed prior to the Universe we mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...no energy, no physical strcture no physical laws!
@newageathey By the way don't feel bad about the mistake you just made in equivocating "nothingness" with the quantum vacuum or empty space, and thereby saying "nothing itself has energy" (a contradiction in terms) its not your fault, Lawrence Krauss is a proven liar who has duped alot of atheists into believing this by falsely equivocating terms:
Watch his debate with William Lane Craig, who brutally exposed him for lying about the quantum vacuum being "a kind of nothing"
@relarerfhjk What would Craig know?He'd be an obscure philosopher and theologian without the Atheists.He's added nothing to Human knowledge,with the possible exception of illustrating that Christians don't really believe in a god since they need Craig(and other sophists) to prop up their 'faith'.Name me one contribution Craig has made to Human knowledge?It's always the same old boring bullshit-how did the Universe begin?what is the source of morality?Any kid can ask those questions.
@henryporter101 name me one contribution Craig has made to human knoowledge"
That's easy, he is a great philosopher who has made massive contributions to the philosophy of time: the great atheist philosopher Quentin Smith said Craig's Kalam argument has generated more peer-reviewed responses than any theist argument of the 20th century: he's had over 200 articles published in peer-reviewed philosophy journals and co-authored over 30 books with some of the best philosophers alive.
@relarerfhjk The Kalam argument!This is what you call a contribution to humanity?I don't think you understand my point.What knowledge has he procured for humanity?Has Craig formed a theory that can be verified?Is his theory concerning time a scientific theory or is it philosophical speculation?Philosophical speculation adds nothing to the pool of Human knowledge-anyone can speculate.Untestable,unfalsifiable speculations are not contributions to knowledge-they generate nothing at all
@henryporter101 It is indeed a great contribution as it has stimulated massive debate in science and philosophy on the existence of God and reinvigorated the case for theism,its an excellent argument which shows that the best of current scientific and metaphysical and mathematical knowledge leads to the conclusion God exists.
Philosophy is the basis of science you clown! "a theory that can be verified" that is itself a discredited philosophical position called verificationalism!
@relarerfhjk You conspicuously avoided saying anything about falsifiable and untestable.I find it interesting that you think the case for theism needed to be 'reinvigorated';you're probably right there.But I don't think this reinvigoration is a contribution to the pool of Human knowledge.You write that the "best of current scientific knowledge leads to the conclusion God exists.How does the theory of natural selection(which,to its credit,has been verified)support the god hypothesis?
@henryporter101 You were spouting discredited self-refuting philosophical views like verifcationalism, while deriding philosophy! The fact something is untestable does not, of course, imply it doesnt exist (strings in physics are also untestable) but the beginning of the Universe from nothing is falsifiable!
Evolution supports Gods existsence because its been estimated the 10 steps necessary to create the human genome would each take millions of years in any normal time-frame!
@relarerfhjk Yes,I am deriding philosophy.The fact that something is untestable,unverifiable,unfalsifiable and generally unobservable,strongly suggests that it doesn't exist.How does evolution support god's existence?
But you were using philosphical ideas when doing so, and therefore made a complete fool of yourself!
The belief that the only way we can prove something exists is to verufy it with empirical evidence is a philosphical belief called "verficiationalism" (look it up) and its been abandoned by philosopphers because its a self-refuting belief (verificationalism cant be verified)
@relarerfhjk What's a 'philosophical idea' as opposed to an idea?Empirical evidence hasn't been abandoned by anyone in science.Who exactly are these people you call 'philosophers?'Can anyone be a 'philosopher'? What knowledge have 'philosophers' secured for humanity?I wonder if falsification has been abandoned because it can't be falsified.I hope you can answer my questions,yours sincerely.Henry.
@henryporter101 Oh dear, have you still not looked up verificationalism (the philosphical worldview you were espousing,while attacking philosophy)?
A "philosphical idea" is a worldview that cant be empirically justified, you clown!
I didnt say "empirical evidence has been adandoned" its the belief that empirical evidence isTHE ONLY WAY ANYTHING CAN BE SHOWN TO TBE TRUE hat has been abandoned!
Because thats self-refuting, since that itself cant be empirically shown to be true.
@relarerfhjk Well,at least you got back to me with a definition of the term 'philosophy'.As regards verificationalism being self refuting,I suggest this is nothing but word games.Logic can't logically be validated,there's no evidence that evidence is of value and so on and so on.
I've just explained why it is self-refuting, are you blind? Do I need to repeat myself endlessly?
Your correct that e.g logical truths cant be proved by logic (since this would be circular) logic, maths and science itself are based on metaphysical assumptions about reality, it has to assume these unproveable things are true, in order to operate.
@Radonatos "what has philosophy secured for humanity"
Erm, science? Science is based on philosophical(unproveable) worldviews and metaphysical assumptions about reality: the rules of empirical evidence (from Occam's principle of "the simplest explanation" to the notion the external world is rational and thus comprehensible etc) all come from philosophy!
"metaphysical knowledge is an oxymoron"
thats the only you can know there are any other minds outside your own!
Your argument falls short on illogical fallacies and impossibilities. For one; something all-powerful is self contradicting and hence an impossibility.
Please provide evidence for your claim that "the natural world had a beginning". There is no evidence for that and, no, the big bang theory states no such thing.
If something can only be caused by something then the only logical conclusion is that something must always have existed and no need for a creator.
@is1337Correct My money would be on ID, you have all the same logical problems/paradoxes with or without it, - but it far better accounts for the sophistication of the Universe than an accident
@is1337Correct "Please provide evidence the natural world had a beginning"
Oh, thats easy:
Big Bang cosmology states that even space and time itself began to exist when the Universe did, there was literally nothing until the Universe came into being!
the Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem (20030 found any expanding Universe must have an absolute beginning!
"With the proof in place theres no escape: cosmologists have to deal with the problem of a cosmic beginning" Villenkin (2006)
Funny how you get it wrong. The Big Bang theory states that space and time itself began to exist WHEN the Universe began to expand. It does not say that the Universe began once it started to expand; the very idea that the Universe began expanding BEFORE it existed is ludicrous.
One more time: The Universe existed, then it expanded, then time and space began. That is what the theory states, it does not state that the Universe had a beginning.
Unfortunately I didnt get it wonr,g you did, and you've just fallen flat on your face. I'll prove it, by quoting the physicist Alexander Villenkin, co-creator of the famous Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem which proves the Universe had to have a beginning!
"With the proof now in place there is no escape: cosmologists have to deal with the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds In One: New York: Hill & Wang, 2006)
@is1337Correct "you got this argument from William Lane Craig"
I didn't. I quoted the physicist, the book and the page I got it from, are you not able to read? I also quoted the theory (2003 Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem) which shows nothing preceded the Big Bang
Big Bang cosmology shows everything including time, had a beginning, YOU got it wrong, and embarassed yourself
The fact Villenkin doesnt believe in design has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARGUUMENT!
@is1337Correct We now know your a liar: Big Bang cosmology not only shows everything had a beginning, but shows that there may have been NO singularity but rather a series of events, all of which had an absolute beginning from nothing.
You also falsely claimed Craig hasnt debated "proficient cosmologists" He has debated the finest atheist cosmologists alive today, including Villenkin, Krauss and Stenger
The evidence for God is so strong none could refute it
There is no evidence for god, there are only fallacies like the one presented by the deluded fool that is Craig. The only thing he does in debating anyone is misusing and misrepresenting the others arguments.
The Big Bang theory nor the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem claims that there was an absolute beginning. To even claim they do proves how ignorant you are.
@is1337Correct Ha ha! - I haven't the interest to trace this thread back, but I'm curious......Is some theist trying to console himself against the embarrassing schooling Turek got here, by remissing some OTHER debate where he figured Craig fared better?? - Lol!!
I've already had this debate under the same circumstance. - It doesn't sustain.
Google what Vilenkin himself elaborates about the thereom. You'll see what I mean!
@is1337Correct William Lane Craig has been disproved countless times"
Really? When/where? Show me where this happened, as I clearly missed it!
I have seen him tear countless atheists apart, including physicists, and thereby demonstrate atheism is a desperate delusion motivated by a DESIRE FOR GOD NOT TO EXIST not by actual evidence that he does not exist
@relarerfhjk But you don't need to prove NON-existence empirically. That's neither the purpose nor the methodological practice of science. And as for the demand for evidence of God's existence being based on a DESIRE for God not to exist -- show me please how such desire has been concretely demonstrated as a motivation or guiding principle for scientific investigation by Craig or anyone else? I'm quite interested in seeing an argument like that spelled out.
@manthasagittarius1 non-existence (or a universal negative) can easily be proved by showing its logically impossible for that thing to exist in any possible world.
I didnt say scientific investigation is motivated by a desire for God not exist, but atheism, particularly New Atheism:Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Dawkins etc are self-declared liberals whose support for selfish acts like euthanasia,abortion,legal drugs etc is the basis of their desire for God not to exist.
@relarerfhjk "Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Dawkins etc are self-declared liberals whose support for selfish acts like euthanasia,abortion,legal drugs etc is the basis of their desire for God not to exist." You have posted this, and your word choices show emotional investment, not neutrality.
How do you make the jump from their support for social policies, whether you like them or not, to the active desire that God not exist? They don't have to "desire" it -- they know it already.
@manthasagittarius1 Nobody in this argument is "neutral" so thats an absurd rebuttal: their support for these policies is the basis of their atheism (like that of most of the post-1960's liberals) because God gets in the way of their selfish "liberation" (hence their vitriolic hatred of the Catholic stance on these issues)
"they know it already"
How? They have no arguments to show He doesnt exist and cant refute the arguments for his existence
@relarerfhjk Oh, yes -- and I'd be much obliged if you could keep the patronizing tone and thinly veiled insults to a tasteful minimum and just answer the question.
@manthasagittarius1 If you claim something does not exist (Hitchens has repeatedly made this positive claim) your making a claim to knowledge that requires evidence.
When atheists say its impossible to provide evidence that God does NOT exist, they are admitting there is no evidence for atheism and, thus, that they believe something for which there is no evidence!
@relarerfhjk Hitchens is not the smartest man ever, I can fully admit(with ease I might add), but simply suggesting that WLC is anywhere near Hitchens' intellect is outright laughable. WLC does have a very nice education and has a great command of the English Language, but his arguments are ridiculous and a waste of valuable brain power.
WLC is not worthy of mentioning. He is disgustingly dishonest, he's packaging crap arguments in fine word. He is a joke and horrible at that.
WLC is about a million miles above Hitchens intellectually, Hitch was never fit to share a stage with him. His arguments are perfectly logical and they dont rely on "fine words" theyve been published in peer-reviewed academic journals on over 200 occasions!
Hitch is just a jounro, he has never published in a peer-reviewed journal, been praised by rival philosphers (like Craig has) or authored academic books.
@relarerfhjk Comparing the two is silly yes, and Hitchens having to share a platform with WLC is ridicule out of this world. If WLC's arguments are logical, then how come in every single debate, his greatest reason for theism is personal relationship with his God(it's ridiculous you wouldn't believe it).
Don't bother responding, I won't read it, I'm sorry. Arguing with someone who prefers WLC over Hitchens is like someone who prefers Katy Perry over Mozart, it's laughable.
@VampirePraemium I presume your just being ironic here. Hitchens is the uneducated pop-culture journalist buffoon, while Craig is the real academic with the PHD's, hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals of philosophy and books praised by the worlds leading minds.
Hitchens got utterly trounced against Craig, by common consent.
"his greatest reason for theism"
Your a liar:
He gives 7 reasons for theism, you have to refute them to disprove the validity of his experience
@relarerfhjk There are many videos humiliating Craig's 7 pieces of shit. Lawrence Krauss put it beautifully " Maybe I am not fit to talk about nothing because theologians and philosophers are experts on nothing". Please, philosophy is grossly outdated. Also, you are =/= your. Your=possesive, You are=you're. Get a fucking clue, you craig cocksucker.
@relarerfhjk There you go again, worshipping the peer review process and the ivy halls of academe. The operative word is "PEER". A peer reviewed journal in theological discipline is going to call together relevant expertise and judge the submission within discipline. Do you expect a board of philosophers and theologians to challenge one of their ranks on theory if it is resting within academic canon and applied in the board-approved fashion? I don't think you know how it works.
@manthasagittarius1 The peers in question are philosophers, not theologians, and, hence, they are mostly atheists!
"do you expect them to challenge one of their ranks"
Erm, yes, and they have all challenged and criticised Craig's arguments: Quentin Smith is a great atheist philosopher and opponent of the Kalam Cosmoligal Argument, but admits Craig is one of the great philosophers of the last century
@relarerfhjk I haven't heard him say categorically that God doesn't exist -- I've heard him say, rather, that the existence of a God such as the one posited in the monotheistic scriptures does not square with modern scientific knowledge, and that God makes demands of his adherents through these scriptures (as interpreted ONLY by mortal mediators) that are characteristic of a much earlier intellectual and moral development of mankind than we show now at our best.
then you need to try reading him, sometime. Here's the quotes to prove it; (on the subject of death)"There is nothing after this life"; (on Voltaire)"The human invention of God is the problem" Of course, something is only a invention if it doesnt exist!
The monotheistic scriptures are supported by modern science, as Craig explained (Hitch clearly didnt know anything about discoveries in modern physics)
@relarerfhjk Don't be a condescending dip -- he is saying over and over that the human-derived construct of the monotheistic traditions is not God. What that means is: if there is a God anywhere, this representation clearly isn't it. And I'd like to ask you myself what VampirePraemium has asked -- why does Craig always fall back on the most subjective and weakest prop, that being his subjective experience of God in person? Just can't resist witnessing in the midst of arguing?
@manthasagittarius1 He cant show its "human-derived", rather than merely "human-discovered" without showing God doesnt exist:
"this representation clearly isnt it"
Apart from the fact that is not his claim (he says God himself is an invention, not just "representations" of him) there are good arguments to show the monotheistic tradition IS an accurate depiction of God.
Craig doesnt "fall back" on experience, he justifies it with 7 pieces of independent evidence
@manthasagittarius1 "they know it already" On the contrary, the New Atheists absurd and stupid claim that you cant prove a negative (or disprove God's existence0 means they are admitting not only that they dont have any evidence for their atheist beliefs but, furthermore, that they think its impossible to produce evidence for it! So, in other words, these clowns believe something which they admit is impossible to provide evidence for!
Easy. Short: Argument based upon nothing but flaws. Long: fatfist(.)hubpages(.)com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig
He have not debated someone proficient in the field of cosmology, someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson, because he would be destroyed.
The Big Bang shows everything had a beginning EXCEPT the singularity that caused the Big Bang.
You have no evidence nor arguments for the existence of god, only a desire...
@is1337Correct "He has not debated someone proficient in cosmology" You are joking arent you? He has debated the finest cosmologists and physicists in the game today: incluidng Alexander Villenkin, Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger (twice)
None of them were able to rebut the Fine Tuning Argument or the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
"Everything except the singularity" WRONG! The Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem shows everything had a beginning including the singularity!!
You are seriously deluded and stupid. You do not understand the Big Bang theory and even less the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
Borde, Guth and Vilenkin did NOT rule out an eternal universe. They merely ruled out one kind of eternal universe, the kind where the Big Bang never happened. The fact that there was a Big Bang does not mean there was nothing before the Big Bang.
The full refutation of your argument at: asktheatheist(dot)com/?p=360
It is possible that I used null hypothesis in the wrong way. English is after all my second language. As for "begs the question", I mean that suggesting god did something only causes one to ask what god is and how he came about.
It is infuriating to hear the religious 'humanising' abstract phenomena. "Non-existence to existence need a choice" !!??!! The sooner all religious folk undertake undergrad level (dare I say high school) chemistry and realise that they have infinitely more in common with a pencil than whatever force was required to initiate the universe as we know it , the better. "the type-writer is out of existence" !!?? Poor CH, where do you begin to respond to such stupidity!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
Lol, tab. Years later and you're still copy-pasting nonsense from al-islam? One would have thought you would have been capable of formulating arguments into your own words by now. But I guess such inability is to be expected from a culture that demonizes freedom of thought.
@Onithyr How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Answer the question!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
@GypsyLeah Call Him by whatever name you like (Allah, Jehovah, God, Merciful, Bhagwan etc), as long as the word is not contaminated, (does not conjure up a mental picture)
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Say: "Invoke God, or invoke the Most Gracious:
by whichever name you invoke Him,
He is always the One -- for His are all the attributes of perfection."
@oaaserud Not necessarily, you can be religious and have knowledge but will be ignorant of the fact that the religion you believe in limits intellectual freedom. However, not all religions produce ignorant people, the atheistic, philosophical ones like Buddhism, Taoism, etc. gives an amount of intellectual freedom But still, religions such as Christianity and Islam, can limit the human mind. We can say that people, fundamentally brought into religion, are unexposed to better knowledge.
@OrlyDudeGuy i think of knowledge another way. hard to explain in a short text here, if you want full answer, message me. lets say you were to act around me, so both of us got the best possible feeling out of it, you would have to know about me, how my mind works, and know your self, you would also have to know how gravity works so you didnt hurt me, while trying to help. the more information you get, and the more you can comprehend these facts, the easier it gets. ofc, i would do the same.
@OrlyDudeGuy now lets say something hindered people from getting to know all these facts, and for the sake of conversation, lets say that thing is religion. and non believers, would have to waste their time learning about fairy tales (bible, koran) so they could act as good for everyone as they could, and not disrespect etc. makes our planet, a whole lot tougher to be happy in if you ask me. and this is just one of the dilemmas thats brought to the table. but i have to agree, buddhisme is better
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Why does Hitchens allow Turek to get away with saying "Nothing"? The BB theory says Everything was compressed by Infinite gravity into a point of super dense matter.
Hitchens, ' God is not great' is one of my favourite books. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey
Wow, Hitchens is an idiot. He won't answer the question without changing the subject, then he gets mad at the other guy for asking the same question that Hitchens didn't answer. Its funny how Hitchens doesn't know the answer, yet he knows that he's wrong so he changes the subject. Lets be honest here folks, who's the one changing the subject?
@TheSeventhCamera He doesn't need to answer, it is utterly irrelevant like most of the theist bullshit. The burden of proof is always on the theist, we don't have to assume he's right until he has proven his position. The atheist admits he doesn't know, it's the theist that's misguided in thinking he does.
@M3t4lManiac What do you mean its utterly irrelevant?! How do you atheists base a belief on a process, when you pretty much reject the actions of the first steps? I didn't hear him once say I don't know. He just made up some crap that doesn't even make sense. He even asked himself a question that he couldn't answer. If you don't even know the most important things about evolution, how can you believe it?
@TheSeventhCamera Atheism is not a belief, it's the lack of belief in god(s). I can't see what evolution has got to do with anything, atheism is not reliant on evolution to be true, which it is anyway. He points out that the theist doesn't have special insight into this question, no more information is available to him than the atheist. Also his question is dishonest, there is nothing that leads us to think that there once was nothing and the atheist can merely answer "I don't know".
@TheSeventhCamera cont. Neither of it matters. Even if Hitchens can't answer, which is obviously impossible since science hasn't gotten that far yet that doesn't mean that Turek's explanation is superior, or that his claim is true. Since Turek has no evidence to back up his claim, it is entirely irrelevant what an alternative explanation might be or if anybody else can dream one up.
Bashing my type-writer eh Christian Guy....keep talking.....
torontoBluejays87 17 hours ago
Ha! Not a fair contest, is it? :-)
trebange 1 day ago
I have vague memories of Turek (in one of his unchallenged sermons) actually claiming victory in this debate.
Talk about Christianity requiring a deluded mind!!
Tobytrim 4 days ago
@Tobytrim Victory is apparently being absolutely roflstomped at every turn. I seriously don't even care about anybody trying to argue against Hitchens in Youtube comments. They would be destroyed if they were to attempt to argue against him, had he be here today.
TygerShumate 7 hours ago
@TygerShumate Yes, I noticed. But frankly, these arguments of Tureks have died the death on YouTube too. Hitchens' take on them is simply a bonus to those who enjoy the art of demeaning ownage!
Tobytrim 2 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The above are quranic teachings. I just changed the word non-muslim to muslim. Try it"
No they are not. Those are simply your lies. Take them somewhere else.
AminThePoet 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ask the following question from A muslim.The question: Assume a religion is made which says : Muslims are worse than animals , bastards ,must pay jiziyah ( 50% extra tax ) , must be subdued and killed and their wives raped .
Ask them then: Is such a religion evil and must be eradicated or not ?
None of them ( Muslims) will answer this question and run like rats to hide in their holes. Why ? cuz :
The above are quranic teachings. I just changed the word non-muslim to muslim. Try it
rzadan 5 days ago
"How do you get so much nothing from something?"
Brilliant. Almost brought a tear to my eye.
xLordOfTheFliesx 1 week ago
I wish more debates had this back-and-forth format.
BuBBaGump014 2 weeks ago
@BuBBaGump014
Then it would cease to be a debate and become an argument. Point - Counterpoint is the only way to keep things civilized.
tenorman86 2 weeks ago
Dara O'briain said it quite nicely: "Well science KNOWS it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop."
Hitchens is right, we're not the ones that need to answer how something comes from nothing, because we know that we don't know, and are still in the process of trying to find out. YOU are the one that suggests that they do know.
McJohnstable 3 weeks ago
This is the debate where I lost my Hitchens-virginity and I haven't stopped watching him since then.
VampirePraemium 3 weeks ago
@VampirePraemium And if you want to lose your Hitchens fervour, watch him get thrashed by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.
Hitch was a good journalist and a good speaker; but he was never an academic and when he came up against real Christian academics (with expertise in historical Jesus studies, the classic philosophical arguments for the Christian God and the empirical evidence for design in the Universe) he came badly unstuck
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk Speaking as one, I don't think I'd elevate academics to quite the lofty position you do across the board. Theologians are well trained in certain concentrated areas, but all you need do is watch a classically trained philosopher go at it with an equally well-trained neuropsychologist to see an almost awe-inspiring gulf between universes of discourses. Hitchens was well and broadly educated, voraciously inquisitive, and no less informed for being an autodidact later on.
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
@manthasagittarius1 Philosophy and science are certainly different (equally useful and mutually dependent) disciplines,but Hitch doesnt get the arguments at all, as was painfully obvious against Dr Craig.
Craig exposed his arguments against God's existence as fallacies (i.e saying impending Heat Death proves the Universe wasnt designed, when finite duration doesnt disprove design) while Hitch couldnt refute 1 of the positive arguments for God (and misunderstood most of them)
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@relarerfhjk Speaking as one, I don't think I'd elevate academics to quite the lofty position you do across the board. Theologians are well trained in certain concentrated areas, but all you need do is watch a classically trained philosopher go at it with an equally well-trained neuropsychologist to see an almost awe-inspiring gulf between universes of discourses. Hitchens was well and broadly educated, voraciously inquisitive, and no less informed for being an autodidact later on.
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
thinking of it in an unbiased way, religious people will never win a debate against people using reason, its impossible. because the nature of a debate is to deduce what we know from the issue at hand.
missionpupa 3 weeks ago
turek is such a toolbag...
kevinvolkmann 3 weeks ago
i am an atheist, and i have to say that hitchens did a lame ass job in this video. he is rude and evasive.
tomasortega1 3 weeks ago
CONTINUED FROM BELOW: that it is a mathematically probability that we are simulations living in a 2d universe with the third and 4th dimensions (space/ time) coming from inside our own minds. The probability that we are simulations lends one to then conclude that there is indeed a GOD. Probably not a old dude with a huge white beard in robes holding a staff, but a creator non-the-less. Hell, we don't even know what Gravity is. (It's actually an illusion btw)
elTiburon1971 4 weeks ago
I like this Hitchen's dude, but he zeroes in too much on Christianity. And I am sorry, but he does need to provide evidence of his POV. I am not aware of a single instance of something coming from nothing. Hawkins was able to use a "trick" of math to extrapolate this possibility. Fact is, there is a even larger growing mass of evidence that we are indeed living in a holographic universe, even possibly living in a simulation. One could even claim (accurately) ... Continued....
elTiburon1971 4 weeks ago
HITCHSLAP!
elliecasp668 1 month ago
Hitch obliterates!
jenniferkah 1 month ago 5
Christian guy:"To go from nonexistence to existence, you need to make a choice."
I never chose to be born, yet here I am...
Ledwix 1 month ago 24
@Ledwix No, but a choice was made. That's the point, a choice was made for you by YOUR creators... (Mum and Dad)
elTiburon1971 4 weeks ago
@Ledwix im not agreeing with a christian stance, but just pointing out a flaw in your logic. you never choose to be born, yet here you are, true. but your parents made a choice to have a child.
bagamer13 1 day ago
How do you get something from nothing? How do you get God from nothing? Where did he come from?
CyeOutsider 1 month ago
MINDFUCK
Mrswineproductions 1 month ago
If the universe was designed and created, then they did a fucking atrocious job
RickyBalboa04 1 month ago
Lol, this man loves the straw-man argument.
ratonL 1 month ago
GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GO! GO HITCHIE BABY GGO HITCHIE BABY GO! O! GO HITCHIE BABY GO!
blarson12 1 month ago
Why is another Theist comparing god to a man made object again? You'd think they would use what they always say god has created, like animals, trees, and our planet. He does himself a great disservice by making analogies of clearly man made objects like a typewriter or the famous watch on a beach analogy. When you say something must have a cause you give up the right to say god doesn't have a creator. When you say something that is complex needs a creator you can't say god was not created.
Antimidation 1 month ago
We don't know if there was a beginning of the universe all we know is that there was a finite past of expansion for the universe and 13.72 billion years ago there was a point at which this universe was so densely packed that the ability for any of our terestrial methods of inquiry to summarize what happened, completely fall to bits. These are called the Big Bang Expansion and the Big Bang Singularity.
That answer should have fucking shut Turek up!!! xXx
dantrizz 1 month ago
@dantrizz I really do not understand why we still tend to state that the universe came from nothing. We do not know this. We know there was a Big Bang. We do not know what caused this, so it seems odd to me to state it was caused from nothing. I believe the Big Bang is the effect of a cause. Just like everything else we found in nature.
bukifuriku 1 month ago
@bukifuriku I have to agree with your comment there mate! If you combine this concept with Hawking's no boundary theory, then you literally have a logical account of the universe without any need for an intelligent designer. I think Hitchen's point in this video though, is absolutely fantastic. Science has never claimed to know what happened before the Big Bang. Religion has. We can't go around expecting people to know thinks they don't claim too. It's like asking a baby to fix your car!
christophcooneyoff 4 weeks ago
@christophcooneyoff Thank you for pointing me to the Hawking theory, I will spend my afternoon to investigating it :) I also agree with you, how can anyone expect an explaination from someone who is not claiming anything :D Hitchens states he can not gives the explaination, and he does not know of anyone who can. Christians think to 'know' but that is an unjustified claim. A belief. And they cannot provide evidence as a result.
bukifuriku 4 weeks ago
@bukifuriku Oh Hawking's theory will bend your mind but when the penny drops, you'll realise how cool it is! And yeah, that is the interesting gap between Religion and Science. Whenever science makes a claim, it has to provide mounds of evidence, obvious patterns and complex mathematics to justify the conclusion. When religion makes a claim, it quotes a near 2000 year old book, and seems to think that'll do the trick. We're playing by different rules!
christophcooneyoff 4 weeks ago
Type writers and quantum fluctuation seem like a pretty logical comparison......
Johnf85 1 month ago
Love it, Hitchens kicks this guys ass!
GodlessHappyAndFree 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Concousness and God are the same thing. God created the universe by thinking the universe into existence and as a result, the universe responds to thought. Read the book the Secret!
Stevo6452 2 months ago
Mr Hitchens was absolutely right about religions, sadly he thought God and religions are the same, that is the most common mistake among atheists.
RIP Christopher
fundie2008 2 months ago
@fundie2008 well, we atheists, when we say god mean a monotheistic one–may very well be a god, but no any from these pathetic cults.
shatner99 2 months ago
@shatner99 forget cults and religion, the question here is "There is a Creator or not". Life was created or not. But atheists only talk about religion and the Spaguetti Monster
fundie2008 2 months ago
nature made also aquariums and terrariums? 50.000 years ago the earth was a jungle, in 6000 years humans have technology and went to the moon. Obviously humans are aliens or made by an alien God.
fundie2008 2 months ago
R.I P Christopher Hitchens
supersnowyangel 2 months ago
RIP Hitchens. You will be missed :(
GgpaL19ds 2 months ago
I bet there isn't Pepsi in that cup
ChibiRoy 3 months ago
This universe is bound by laws and restrictions...there must be a law-giver...humans and plants work in perfect harmony...how did we both evolve together? here is a man (hitchens) who enduldges in life's pleasures..he drinks,smokes, wishes death on peole and has taken part in homosexal acts by his own admission...im now judging this man ...but is he a moral compass or authority on the matter?
razorpayne13 3 months ago
@razorpayne13 You fucking imbecilic wanker, shut the fuck up.
yatter1 1 month ago
This Turek moron is a shrieking, whining, simpering excuse for a man, give him a sausage roll and tell him to fuck off.
yatter1 3 months ago
@yatter1 "The Turek moron is a shrieking whimpering excuse for a man"
Boy, don't you love the open-mindedness and civility of the atheist faction?
The perpetrators of the Inquisition were a beacon of tolerance by comparison
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@relarerfhjk But we don´t want to kill the stupid cunt because we disagree, that´s where you and I probably disagree huh? We all know how open minded fucking christians have been, the cemeteries are full of it.
yatter1 1 month ago
The non-religious guy is a bit of a twat, continuall interupting the other guy and stuff. Not a good way to engage in a debate at all. On the other hand, I think that it is ridiculous and vain to assume that, as tiny animals on one planet in the universe, we could possibly somehow know the means of the universes creation.There's no reason to discount some creative force forming the universe, but to think we could understand it is probably stupid.There's no reason this "force" has to defy science
MrJulianneave 4 months ago
Question - "where does everything come from?"
Answer - "I don't have to know, I'm not the one who has to answer the question"
Doesn't answer the question
o0WithAllYourMind0o 4 months ago
@o0WithAllYourMind0o
Then you probably shouldn't watch these vids, might i suggest Fox News?
BoZakface 3 months ago 2
@o0WithAllYourMind0o The point is that we don't know and we're currently working on figuring it out. Theists, on the other hand, claim they know already but have yet to prove it.
GypsyLeah 3 months ago
"how do you get so much nothing from so much something" FTW!
gethsoftware 4 months ago
As usual, the truth and explanation is in a Roman collection of Bronze Age legends. To hell with science.
carmium 4 months ago
There has to be a choice?!?!? How is this guy on the same stage as Hitchens?!?!?
lumpheadthump 4 months ago
Hitchens OWNED again
wazzumichael 4 months ago
Actually a better response I think would have been as follows:
1) We don't yet know what was before the big bang, so no comment.
2) If god created the universe, then it is implied that he was there before it was created, but that begs the question of who created god and spirals out of control into an infinite regress, so its a null hypothesis. (explains nothing)
3) What we do know is that the data suggests that 13.8 billion years ago everything was on top of itself.
imigrant00 4 months ago 27
@imigrant00 I'm pretty sure that's not what 'null hypothesis' means.
GypsyLeah 3 months ago
@GypsyLeah
Wrong. That's what we call honesty. List the evidence and interpret it honestly... aka without adding any spiritual drivel... aka religious mumbo-jumbo.
imigrant00 2 months ago
@imigrant00 Okay you're going to need a dictionary or something.
GypsyLeah 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@imigrant00 says "We don't yet know what was before the big bang". Then why atheists are 100% sure that there was no Creator? If you don't know why you close the possibility?
fundie2008 2 months ago
@imigrant00
1)NOTHING was "before" ,time came into being with the Big Bang!
2) "who created god" :you dont have to be able to explain the best explanation;even if we cant explain the architect,the house was still designed! There must be an uncaused First Cause of everything (or there's no cuase of anything) so Gods a necessary being,(not a contingent one)so doesnt depend on anything else for His existence:
Time came into being with the Universe,so whatever caused it is timeless!
relarerfhjk 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"you dont have to be able to explain the best explanation" Looked up the definition of an explanation lately? How can god be an explanation when nothing is explained. The creation of the universe is still a mystery.
God is about as necessary to explain the origin of the Universe as 9/11 truthers are necessary to discover what went down on September the 11th, 2001.
imigrant00 2 months ago
@imigrant00 You need to look up basic philosophy: you don't need to be able to explain an explanation otherwise science could explain nothing as there would be an infinite regress: if you found a spaceship, design would still be the best explanation of its existence,even if you couldnt explain its designers!!. Dawkins argument is a basic logical fallacy
"still a mystery" logic leads to the conlusion nature didnt create itself from nothing, the cause must be supernatural
relarerfhjk 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk
What a deliciously stupid response. Before you can begin a discussion about anything you have to agree on definitions otherwise the conversation is meaningless. An explanation therefore is defined by something which divulges to us how something else occurs. Evolution's equations explain the diversity of species on Earth. Maxwell's equations explain how electricity behaves. God is a mystery, aka, a non-explanation. Thanks.
imigrant00 2 months ago
@imigrant00 Its delicious when someone tries to sound smart and trips up on and lands face-down in the mud, as you just have. "something which divulges to us how something occurs" Exactly... so if design best explains how something occured, you don't need to then be able to explain how the designer occured! For something to be the best explanation, you don't have to then be able to explain the explanation! Thats the whole point, you complete ignoramus.
relarerfhjk 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk
A spaceship is something we are capable of designing so its logical to assume that a spaceship was designed by us or some being like us. Though life may appear designed you can't jump to the same conclusion as we are yet unaware of a process that can create life. I can say that life was created by the black hole in the galactic center. You cannot disprove that it wasn't, just like I can't disprove that your magician didn't, but that doesn't mean he did and it doesn't mean he exists
imigrant00 2 months ago
@imigrant00 The point, which you keep missing, because you got hung up on a spaceship,is that if we discovered anything, from an ancient structure, to a crashed saucer,design would stil be the best explanation of how that thing came to be, even if the designer was "a mystery" as you put it!
If we found a crashed ship on the Moon,but the designers were "a mystery" and we did not know where they came from,would that mean its parts just fell into place by chance?
You lose again, clown!
relarerfhjk 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk
What exactly are you calling god? If you mean the precise sequence of events that led to what we observe today and simplistically call "The Big Bang" then I'd say that I agree with you. But if you'll sit there and tell me that the Universe began by magic, and claim that you know the magician that did it, I'd have to call you on your bullshit. You have no source of information that's unavailable to me so stop pretending that you do. Thanks.
imigrant00 2 months ago
@imigrant00 There was no "sequence of events" causing the Universe,since time itself began with the Big Bang! "you have no source of information not available to me" Indeed, the information is available to veryone with their eyes open.
Basic logic shows something c annot come from nothing and, since everything in Nature, including time, had a beginning, the cause must be supernatural, timeless, immensely powerful and personal (since abstract timeless objects can't cause anything)
relarerfhjk 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk
The big bang is the beginning of our universe as we currently understand it. That does not suggest nothing before it and it says nothing about the supernatural, immensely powerful and personal magician that you so lovingly imagine out of thin air. The truth is that we don't know what happened before that and to suggest that you do is to show how shallow minded and dishonest you're willing to be for your religion.
imigrant00 2 months ago
@imigrant00 "that does not suggest nothing before it"
Yes it does, are you totally clueles? Time itself was created with the Big Bang, so there was no "before it"! Physicists dont just say the Universe began to exist, the Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem shows ANY EXPANDING UNIVERSE must have an absolute beginning
That means everything in the natural world came from nothing; atheists have a simple choice, they believe everything popped, uncaused, out of nothing, or they believe in God
relarerfhjk 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk You say it as though those are the only two possible answers; nothing or God.
The fact is that we don't yet (emphasis on that word) know what caused the Big Bang, but that does not - by default - mean that it was "God".
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred its not "by default" that we reach the conclusion it must be God, but by deductive logic. Everything in the natural world had a beginning, so nature cannot have "caused" itself to begin to exist!
Whatever caused Nature to exist must be supernatural, timeless (as time began to exist when the Universe did), very powerful (to create all space/time reality), extremely intelligent (to "fine-tune" the Universe for life) and personal (abstract objects cant cause anything)
relarerfhjk 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk That is precisely what I'm talking about. "Whatever caused Nature to exist must be supernatural". That is such a bold claim based on nothing at all. You're saying there simply HAS to be a God by default.
Can you really not see how fallacious that is?
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred "that is such a bold claim based on nothing"
Iits not based on "nothing at all" just explained what its based on!!
its based on the twin premises that everything in Nature came into being, and that something cannot come into being, from nothing without cause: therefore, since Nature did not "cause" itself (because everything in Nature began to exist) it must have a supernatual First Cause
relarerfhjk 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk Says who? Why does it "have" to be supernatural? Over the decades, science has come to know more and more about this world, and with each new discovery, it's supernatural explanation is debunked. Why the Sun moves, why there are storms, why epileptics appear "possessed"; they've all been debunked as having perfectly scientific explanations. Not a single discovery in history has yielded a supernatural result. Not one.
What makes you think the "First Cause" is any different?
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred "why does it have to be supernatural" I explained this in a private message but shall explain it here for others to read. The cause must be supernatural because nothing in the natural world existed prior to the beginning of space/time reality! Everything, including time itself, had an absolute beginning. So, unless Nature popped uncaused out of nothing, the cause of Nature must be supernatural
relarerfhjk 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk (Part 2) The fact that we don't yet know what the "first cause" is does NOT mean that it is automatically supernatural. Based on what I've just said in my previous comment, it stands to reason that whatever the answer is, it will be perfectly scientific and perfectly natural. There is absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to believe that it will be supernatural. None.
Your argument that it "MUST be supernatural" is wrong. Flat-out, completely and totally wrong. Idiotic, even.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@SeedsOfHatred "Idiotic even"
The argument is perfectly logical (impeccable, even), the conclusion follows inescapably from the premises: a) everything in the natural world came into being b) anything that comes into being must have a cause c) the cause of the natural world must be supernatural, timeless/spaceless (because space/time itself began to exist with the Universe), all-powerful ( to create an entire Universe) and personal (abstract objects cant "cause" anything)
relarerfhjk 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk Current evidence points that the universe did come from nothing, or at the very least could have. In Quantum Mechanics, whenever you have empty space, or to say space devoid of all matter and energy, you will get matter or energy in it. Nothingness itself has energy.
Professor Laurence Krauss did a wonderful lecture on it. Simply do a search for "A Universe from Nothing". He also has a book with the same name that I am sure will answer many of your curious quandaries.
newageathey 1 month ago
@newageathey "nothingness itself has energy"
You have made a basic error,common among those untutored in these arguments. Its false to equivocate empty space/the quantum vacuum with "nothingness", the quantum vacuum is a rich sea of energy with physical structure, governed by physical laws so it isnt an example of something coming from nothing:
whereas when we say nothing existed prior to the Universe we mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...no energy, no physical strcture no physical laws!
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@newageathey By the way don't feel bad about the mistake you just made in equivocating "nothingness" with the quantum vacuum or empty space, and thereby saying "nothing itself has energy" (a contradiction in terms) its not your fault, Lawrence Krauss is a proven liar who has duped alot of atheists into believing this by falsely equivocating terms:
Watch his debate with William Lane Craig, who brutally exposed him for lying about the quantum vacuum being "a kind of nothing"
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@relarerfhjk What would Craig know?He'd be an obscure philosopher and theologian without the Atheists.He's added nothing to Human knowledge,with the possible exception of illustrating that Christians don't really believe in a god since they need Craig(and other sophists) to prop up their 'faith'.Name me one contribution Craig has made to Human knowledge?It's always the same old boring bullshit-how did the Universe begin?what is the source of morality?Any kid can ask those questions.
henryporter101 1 month ago
@henryporter101 name me one contribution Craig has made to human knoowledge"
That's easy, he is a great philosopher who has made massive contributions to the philosophy of time: the great atheist philosopher Quentin Smith said Craig's Kalam argument has generated more peer-reviewed responses than any theist argument of the 20th century: he's had over 200 articles published in peer-reviewed philosophy journals and co-authored over 30 books with some of the best philosophers alive.
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@relarerfhjk The Kalam argument!This is what you call a contribution to humanity?I don't think you understand my point.What knowledge has he procured for humanity?Has Craig formed a theory that can be verified?Is his theory concerning time a scientific theory or is it philosophical speculation?Philosophical speculation adds nothing to the pool of Human knowledge-anyone can speculate.Untestable,unfalsifiable speculations are not contributions to knowledge-they generate nothing at all
henryporter101 1 month ago
@henryporter101 It is indeed a great contribution as it has stimulated massive debate in science and philosophy on the existence of God and reinvigorated the case for theism,its an excellent argument which shows that the best of current scientific and metaphysical and mathematical knowledge leads to the conclusion God exists.
Philosophy is the basis of science you clown! "a theory that can be verified" that is itself a discredited philosophical position called verificationalism!
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@relarerfhjk You conspicuously avoided saying anything about falsifiable and untestable.I find it interesting that you think the case for theism needed to be 'reinvigorated';you're probably right there.But I don't think this reinvigoration is a contribution to the pool of Human knowledge.You write that the "best of current scientific knowledge leads to the conclusion God exists.How does the theory of natural selection(which,to its credit,has been verified)support the god hypothesis?
henryporter101 1 month ago
@henryporter101 You were spouting discredited self-refuting philosophical views like verifcationalism, while deriding philosophy! The fact something is untestable does not, of course, imply it doesnt exist (strings in physics are also untestable) but the beginning of the Universe from nothing is falsifiable!
Evolution supports Gods existsence because its been estimated the 10 steps necessary to create the human genome would each take millions of years in any normal time-frame!
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@relarerfhjk Yes,I am deriding philosophy.The fact that something is untestable,unverifiable,unfalsifiable and generally unobservable,strongly suggests that it doesn't exist.How does evolution support god's existence?
henryporter101 1 month ago
@henryporter101 "yes i am deriding philosophy"
But you were using philosphical ideas when doing so, and therefore made a complete fool of yourself!
The belief that the only way we can prove something exists is to verufy it with empirical evidence is a philosphical belief called "verficiationalism" (look it up) and its been abandoned by philosopphers because its a self-refuting belief (verificationalism cant be verified)
relarerfhjk 2 weeks ago
@relarerfhjk What's a 'philosophical idea' as opposed to an idea?Empirical evidence hasn't been abandoned by anyone in science.Who exactly are these people you call 'philosophers?'Can anyone be a 'philosopher'? What knowledge have 'philosophers' secured for humanity?I wonder if falsification has been abandoned because it can't be falsified.I hope you can answer my questions,yours sincerely.Henry.
henryporter101 2 weeks ago
@henryporter101 Oh dear, have you still not looked up verificationalism (the philosphical worldview you were espousing,while attacking philosophy)?
A "philosphical idea" is a worldview that cant be empirically justified, you clown!
I didnt say "empirical evidence has been adandoned" its the belief that empirical evidence isTHE ONLY WAY ANYTHING CAN BE SHOWN TO TBE TRUE hat has been abandoned!
Because thats self-refuting, since that itself cant be empirically shown to be true.
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk Well,at least you got back to me with a definition of the term 'philosophy'.As regards verificationalism being self refuting,I suggest this is nothing but word games.Logic can't logically be validated,there's no evidence that evidence is of value and so on and so on.
henryporter101 1 week ago
@henryporter101 "nothing but word games"
I've just explained why it is self-refuting, are you blind? Do I need to repeat myself endlessly?
Your correct that e.g logical truths cant be proved by logic (since this would be circular) logic, maths and science itself are based on metaphysical assumptions about reality, it has to assume these unproveable things are true, in order to operate.
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk
> ... that the best of current scientific and metaphysical and mathematical
> knowledge leads to the conclusion God exists.
Care to say which god it proves ? Zeus, Ra, or the good old abrahamitic god ?
And seriously, "metaphysical knowledge" is a bit of an oxymoron, when you take a look at it...
Religion trying to be science was the worst publicity idea ever, not only embarrassing most of its believers, but also offending a good part of them.
Radonatos 1 month ago
@Radonatos "what has philosophy secured for humanity"
Erm, science? Science is based on philosophical(unproveable) worldviews and metaphysical assumptions about reality: the rules of empirical evidence (from Occam's principle of "the simplest explanation" to the notion the external world is rational and thus comprehensible etc) all come from philosophy!
"metaphysical knowledge is an oxymoron"
thats the only you can know there are any other minds outside your own!
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk
Your argument falls short on illogical fallacies and impossibilities. For one; something all-powerful is self contradicting and hence an impossibility.
Please provide evidence for your claim that "the natural world had a beginning". There is no evidence for that and, no, the big bang theory states no such thing.
If something can only be caused by something then the only logical conclusion is that something must always have existed and no need for a creator.
is1337Correct 1 month ago
@is1337Correct My money would be on ID, you have all the same logical problems/paradoxes with or without it, - but it far better accounts for the sophistication of the Universe than an accident
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@is1337Correct "Please provide evidence the natural world had a beginning"
Oh, thats easy:
Big Bang cosmology states that even space and time itself began to exist when the Universe did, there was literally nothing until the Universe came into being!
the Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem (20030 found any expanding Universe must have an absolute beginning!
"With the proof in place theres no escape: cosmologists have to deal with the problem of a cosmic beginning" Villenkin (2006)
relarerfhjk 1 month ago
@relarerfhjk
Funny how you get it wrong. The Big Bang theory states that space and time itself began to exist WHEN the Universe began to expand. It does not say that the Universe began once it started to expand; the very idea that the Universe began expanding BEFORE it existed is ludicrous.
One more time: The Universe existed, then it expanded, then time and space began. That is what the theory states, it does not state that the Universe had a beginning.
is1337Correct 2 weeks ago
@is1337Correct "Funny how you got it wrong"
Unfortunately I didnt get it wonr,g you did, and you've just fallen flat on your face. I'll prove it, by quoting the physicist Alexander Villenkin, co-creator of the famous Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem which proves the Universe had to have a beginning!
"With the proof now in place there is no escape: cosmologists have to deal with the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds In One: New York: Hill & Wang, 2006)
Care to apologise?
relarerfhjk 2 weeks ago
@relarerfhjk
You still got the theory of the Big Bang wrong. You got this argument from William Lane Craig who has been disputed countless of times.
"Still the question remains; what happened before the inflation, if anything?" - Vilenkin
"I have never seen much in the idea that the universe was designed" - Guth
Inflation, as Vilenkin refers to, is once the Universe began to expand from its singularity.
Care to do research yourself?
is1337Correct 2 weeks ago
@is1337Correct "you got this argument from William Lane Craig"
I didn't. I quoted the physicist, the book and the page I got it from, are you not able to read? I also quoted the theory (2003 Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem) which shows nothing preceded the Big Bang
Big Bang cosmology shows everything including time, had a beginning, YOU got it wrong, and embarassed yourself
The fact Villenkin doesnt believe in design has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARGUUMENT!
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@is1337Correct We now know your a liar: Big Bang cosmology not only shows everything had a beginning, but shows that there may have been NO singularity but rather a series of events, all of which had an absolute beginning from nothing.
You also falsely claimed Craig hasnt debated "proficient cosmologists" He has debated the finest atheist cosmologists alive today, including Villenkin, Krauss and Stenger
The evidence for God is so strong none could refute it
relarerfhjk 6 days ago
@relarerfhjk
There is no evidence for god, there are only fallacies like the one presented by the deluded fool that is Craig. The only thing he does in debating anyone is misusing and misrepresenting the others arguments.
The Big Bang theory nor the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem claims that there was an absolute beginning. To even claim they do proves how ignorant you are.
is1337Correct 1 day ago
@is1337Correct Ha ha! - I haven't the interest to trace this thread back, but I'm curious......Is some theist trying to console himself against the embarrassing schooling Turek got here, by remissing some OTHER debate where he figured Craig fared better?? - Lol!!
I've already had this debate under the same circumstance. - It doesn't sustain.
Google what Vilenkin himself elaborates about the thereom. You'll see what I mean!
Tobytrim 2 hours ago
@is1337Correct William Lane Craig has been disproved countless times"
Really? When/where? Show me where this happened, as I clearly missed it!
I have seen him tear countless atheists apart, including physicists, and thereby demonstrate atheism is a desperate delusion motivated by a DESIRE FOR GOD NOT TO EXIST not by actual evidence that he does not exist
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk But you don't need to prove NON-existence empirically. That's neither the purpose nor the methodological practice of science. And as for the demand for evidence of God's existence being based on a DESIRE for God not to exist -- show me please how such desire has been concretely demonstrated as a motivation or guiding principle for scientific investigation by Craig or anyone else? I'm quite interested in seeing an argument like that spelled out.
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
@manthasagittarius1 non-existence (or a universal negative) can easily be proved by showing its logically impossible for that thing to exist in any possible world.
I didnt say scientific investigation is motivated by a desire for God not exist, but atheism, particularly New Atheism:Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Dawkins etc are self-declared liberals whose support for selfish acts like euthanasia,abortion,legal drugs etc is the basis of their desire for God not to exist.
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk "Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Dawkins etc are self-declared liberals whose support for selfish acts like euthanasia,abortion,legal drugs etc is the basis of their desire for God not to exist." You have posted this, and your word choices show emotional investment, not neutrality.
How do you make the jump from their support for social policies, whether you like them or not, to the active desire that God not exist? They don't have to "desire" it -- they know it already.
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
@manthasagittarius1 Nobody in this argument is "neutral" so thats an absurd rebuttal: their support for these policies is the basis of their atheism (like that of most of the post-1960's liberals) because God gets in the way of their selfish "liberation" (hence their vitriolic hatred of the Catholic stance on these issues)
"they know it already"
How? They have no arguments to show He doesnt exist and cant refute the arguments for his existence
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk Oh, yes -- and I'd be much obliged if you could keep the patronizing tone and thinly veiled insults to a tasteful minimum and just answer the question.
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
@manthasagittarius1 If you claim something does not exist (Hitchens has repeatedly made this positive claim) your making a claim to knowledge that requires evidence.
When atheists say its impossible to provide evidence that God does NOT exist, they are admitting there is no evidence for atheism and, thus, that they believe something for which there is no evidence!
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk Hitchens is not the smartest man ever, I can fully admit(with ease I might add), but simply suggesting that WLC is anywhere near Hitchens' intellect is outright laughable. WLC does have a very nice education and has a great command of the English Language, but his arguments are ridiculous and a waste of valuable brain power.
WLC is not worthy of mentioning. He is disgustingly dishonest, he's packaging crap arguments in fine word. He is a joke and horrible at that.
VampirePraemium 1 week ago
@VampirePraemium Anywhere near?
WLC is about a million miles above Hitchens intellectually, Hitch was never fit to share a stage with him. His arguments are perfectly logical and they dont rely on "fine words" theyve been published in peer-reviewed academic journals on over 200 occasions!
Hitch is just a jounro, he has never published in a peer-reviewed journal, been praised by rival philosphers (like Craig has) or authored academic books.
Comparing the two is silly.
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk Comparing the two is silly yes, and Hitchens having to share a platform with WLC is ridicule out of this world. If WLC's arguments are logical, then how come in every single debate, his greatest reason for theism is personal relationship with his God(it's ridiculous you wouldn't believe it).
Don't bother responding, I won't read it, I'm sorry. Arguing with someone who prefers WLC over Hitchens is like someone who prefers Katy Perry over Mozart, it's laughable.
VampirePraemium 1 week ago
@VampirePraemium I presume your just being ironic here. Hitchens is the uneducated pop-culture journalist buffoon, while Craig is the real academic with the PHD's, hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals of philosophy and books praised by the worlds leading minds.
Hitchens got utterly trounced against Craig, by common consent.
"his greatest reason for theism"
Your a liar:
He gives 7 reasons for theism, you have to refute them to disprove the validity of his experience
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@relarerfhjk There are many videos humiliating Craig's 7 pieces of shit. Lawrence Krauss put it beautifully " Maybe I am not fit to talk about nothing because theologians and philosophers are experts on nothing". Please, philosophy is grossly outdated. Also, you are =/= your. Your=possesive, You are=you're. Get a fucking clue, you craig cocksucker.
hislord1 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk There you go again, worshipping the peer review process and the ivy halls of academe. The operative word is "PEER". A peer reviewed journal in theological discipline is going to call together relevant expertise and judge the submission within discipline. Do you expect a board of philosophers and theologians to challenge one of their ranks on theory if it is resting within academic canon and applied in the board-approved fashion? I don't think you know how it works.
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
@manthasagittarius1 The peers in question are philosophers, not theologians, and, hence, they are mostly atheists!
"do you expect them to challenge one of their ranks"
Erm, yes, and they have all challenged and criticised Craig's arguments: Quentin Smith is a great atheist philosopher and opponent of the Kalam Cosmoligal Argument, but admits Craig is one of the great philosophers of the last century
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk I haven't heard him say categorically that God doesn't exist -- I've heard him say, rather, that the existence of a God such as the one posited in the monotheistic scriptures does not square with modern scientific knowledge, and that God makes demands of his adherents through these scriptures (as interpreted ONLY by mortal mediators) that are characteristic of a much earlier intellectual and moral development of mankind than we show now at our best.
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
@manthasagittarius1 "I havent heard him say categorically"
then you need to try reading him, sometime. Here's the quotes to prove it; (on the subject of death)"There is nothing after this life"; (on Voltaire)"The human invention of God is the problem" Of course, something is only a invention if it doesnt exist!
The monotheistic scriptures are supported by modern science, as Craig explained (Hitch clearly didnt know anything about discoveries in modern physics)
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk Don't be a condescending dip -- he is saying over and over that the human-derived construct of the monotheistic traditions is not God. What that means is: if there is a God anywhere, this representation clearly isn't it. And I'd like to ask you myself what VampirePraemium has asked -- why does Craig always fall back on the most subjective and weakest prop, that being his subjective experience of God in person? Just can't resist witnessing in the midst of arguing?
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
@manthasagittarius1 He cant show its "human-derived", rather than merely "human-discovered" without showing God doesnt exist:
"this representation clearly isnt it"
Apart from the fact that is not his claim (he says God himself is an invention, not just "representations" of him) there are good arguments to show the monotheistic tradition IS an accurate depiction of God.
Craig doesnt "fall back" on experience, he justifies it with 7 pieces of independent evidence
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@manthasagittarius1 "they know it already" On the contrary, the New Atheists absurd and stupid claim that you cant prove a negative (or disprove God's existence0 means they are admitting not only that they dont have any evidence for their atheist beliefs but, furthermore, that they think its impossible to produce evidence for it! So, in other words, these clowns believe something which they admit is impossible to provide evidence for!
relarerfhjk 1 week ago
@relarerfhjk
Easy. Short: Argument based upon nothing but flaws. Long: fatfist(.)hubpages(.)com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig
He have not debated someone proficient in the field of cosmology, someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson, because he would be destroyed.
The Big Bang shows everything had a beginning EXCEPT the singularity that caused the Big Bang.
You have no evidence nor arguments for the existence of god, only a desire...
is1337Correct 6 days ago
@is1337Correct "He has not debated someone proficient in cosmology" You are joking arent you? He has debated the finest cosmologists and physicists in the game today: incluidng Alexander Villenkin, Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger (twice)
None of them were able to rebut the Fine Tuning Argument or the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
"Everything except the singularity" WRONG! The Bord-Guth-Villenkin theorem shows everything had a beginning including the singularity!!
relarerfhjk 6 days ago
@relarerfhjk
You are seriously deluded and stupid. You do not understand the Big Bang theory and even less the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
Borde, Guth and Vilenkin did NOT rule out an eternal universe. They merely ruled out one kind of eternal universe, the kind where the Big Bang never happened. The fact that there was a Big Bang does not mean there was nothing before the Big Bang.
The full refutation of your argument at: asktheatheist(dot)com/?p=360
is1337Correct 1 day ago
@imigrant00 Can you explain what you mean by the terms 'null hypothesis' and 'begs the question'?
henryporter101 2 months ago
@henryporter101
It is possible that I used null hypothesis in the wrong way. English is after all my second language. As for "begs the question", I mean that suggesting god did something only causes one to ask what god is and how he came about.
imigrant00 2 months ago
@imigrant00 Agreed, thank you for supporting Hitchie baby.
blarson12 1 month ago
I own a typewriter...
patient0Studios 4 months ago 18
@patient0Studios Where'd ya get it?
kusalaviro 2 months ago
It is infuriating to hear the religious 'humanising' abstract phenomena. "Non-existence to existence need a choice" !!??!! The sooner all religious folk undertake undergrad level (dare I say high school) chemistry and realise that they have infinitely more in common with a pencil than whatever force was required to initiate the universe as we know it , the better. "the type-writer is out of existence" !!?? Poor CH, where do you begin to respond to such stupidity!
lrsul1 5 months ago 3
Comment removed
lrsul1 5 months ago
debating with a religious person is a fucking waste of time.
5yuser 5 months ago
@5yuser
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh
Lol, tab. Years later and you're still copy-pasting nonsense from al-islam? One would have thought you would have been capable of formulating arguments into your own words by now. But I guess such inability is to be expected from a culture that demonizes freedom of thought.
Onithyr 2 months ago
@Onithyr How can you delude yourself and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Answer the question!
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
1tabligh 2 months ago
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh What god?
GypsyLeah 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GypsyLeah Call Him by whatever name you like (Allah, Jehovah, God, Merciful, Bhagwan etc), as long as the word is not contaminated, (does not conjure up a mental picture)
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Say: "Invoke God, or invoke the Most Gracious:
by whichever name you invoke Him,
He is always the One -- for His are all the attributes of perfection."
The Quran 17:110
1tabligh 3 months ago
You cant have something without nothing! Otherwise how would you find the edges?
itsabomberscope 5 months ago
religion is the thoughts of a person without knowledge
oaaserud 5 months ago 3
@oaaserud Not necessarily, you can be religious and have knowledge but will be ignorant of the fact that the religion you believe in limits intellectual freedom. However, not all religions produce ignorant people, the atheistic, philosophical ones like Buddhism, Taoism, etc. gives an amount of intellectual freedom But still, religions such as Christianity and Islam, can limit the human mind. We can say that people, fundamentally brought into religion, are unexposed to better knowledge.
OrlyDudeGuy 4 months ago
@OrlyDudeGuy i think of knowledge another way. hard to explain in a short text here, if you want full answer, message me. lets say you were to act around me, so both of us got the best possible feeling out of it, you would have to know about me, how my mind works, and know your self, you would also have to know how gravity works so you didnt hurt me, while trying to help. the more information you get, and the more you can comprehend these facts, the easier it gets. ofc, i would do the same.
oaaserud 4 months ago
@OrlyDudeGuy now lets say something hindered people from getting to know all these facts, and for the sake of conversation, lets say that thing is religion. and non believers, would have to waste their time learning about fairy tales (bible, koran) so they could act as good for everyone as they could, and not disrespect etc. makes our planet, a whole lot tougher to be happy in if you ask me. and this is just one of the dilemmas thats brought to the table. but i have to agree, buddhisme is better
oaaserud 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
Why does Hitchens allow Turek to get away with saying "Nothing"? The BB theory says Everything was compressed by Infinite gravity into a point of super dense matter.
lewisner 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitchens, ' God is not great' is one of my favourite books. For similar great thoughts try Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Robert M Price, Valerie Tarico, Victor Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Ken Humphreys, Richard Carrier, Ken Pulliam, Keith Parsons, Gary Greenberg, Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Earl Doherty, Israel Finkelstein, Daniel Dennett, C Dennis Mckinsey
zytigon 6 months ago
Wow, Hitchens is an idiot. He won't answer the question without changing the subject, then he gets mad at the other guy for asking the same question that Hitchens didn't answer. Its funny how Hitchens doesn't know the answer, yet he knows that he's wrong so he changes the subject. Lets be honest here folks, who's the one changing the subject?
TheSeventhCamera 6 months ago
@TheSeventhCamera He doesn't need to answer, it is utterly irrelevant like most of the theist bullshit. The burden of proof is always on the theist, we don't have to assume he's right until he has proven his position. The atheist admits he doesn't know, it's the theist that's misguided in thinking he does.
M3t4lManiac 5 months ago
@M3t4lManiac What do you mean its utterly irrelevant?! How do you atheists base a belief on a process, when you pretty much reject the actions of the first steps? I didn't hear him once say I don't know. He just made up some crap that doesn't even make sense. He even asked himself a question that he couldn't answer. If you don't even know the most important things about evolution, how can you believe it?
TheSeventhCamera 5 months ago
@TheSeventhCamera Atheism is not a belief, it's the lack of belief in god(s). I can't see what evolution has got to do with anything, atheism is not reliant on evolution to be true, which it is anyway. He points out that the theist doesn't have special insight into this question, no more information is available to him than the atheist. Also his question is dishonest, there is nothing that leads us to think that there once was nothing and the atheist can merely answer "I don't know".
M3t4lManiac 5 months ago
@TheSeventhCamera cont. Neither of it matters. Even if Hitchens can't answer, which is obviously impossible since science hasn't gotten that far yet that doesn't mean that Turek's explanation is superior, or that his claim is true. Since Turek has no evidence to back up his claim, it is entirely irrelevant what an alternative explanation might be or if anybody else can dream one up.
M3t4lManiac 5 months ago