Christopher Hitchens vs Frank Turek at VCU. (2/14)

[DECRIMINALIZE]

RIP mate

[Tobytrim]

Ha ha!! - Turek sounds so whiney and emphatically emotional as he delivers this obviously irrational hogwash !!

I wonder if he actually thinks there's any validity in this bullshit he's trying to shovel at people, or whether he is just frustrated that he isn't getting away with it regardless?

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, DailyHitchens.

[phocjame]

Nothing was around prior to the big bang. Except God. So rocks dream about...God.

What the fuck are you on, Turek?

[bradkey98765]

Apologies again 4, but I missed one important alternative which should be mentioned. Which is the big bang was the start of time, therefore the term before is meaningless. As said by Steven Hawking. I disagree with this on the simple bases that the term before is no less meaningless than the term after. And to me it is obvious that after the big bang there is an existence of material, myself included. Though perhaps after isn’t quite the correct term but it is the closest we have.

[bradkey98765]

Final comment apologies for all those who say too long didn’t read – This idea of a perpetual motion universe to me is somewhat less considerable due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and will only be account for if black hole evaporation is shown to cause a loss of information. Though this is only one of many theories, most of which make predictions about our universe and therefore can be shown false if these predictions are false. The acceptation being the god theory.

[bradkey98765]

Message continuation - Or alternatively if we do not treat time as a dimension of space, theories such as eternal expansion may apply, or that the knowledge that the end of our universe will be the end of matter, and therefore the end of time. At such an event this could plausibly be the beginning of a singularity splurging a big bang every time. The easiest to grasp example being a big crunch would crush an entire universe into a point containing all the energy that was within that universe.

[bradkey98765]

A little part inside of me dies every time he says explosion. No respectable scientist has ever said that there was nothing before the big bang, there are multiple theories surrounding this e.g. eternal expansion. If you treat time as a dimension of space, and remove human intuition as advised with all incomprehensible scale, to ask why did something begin at this time is like asking why my house exists in plain x,y,z but on the same x,y with a new z it no longer exists.

[groundzer077]

Turek really has the deck stacked against him from the beginning. I'm not talking about the fact that all of his arguments are weak, which they certainly are, but the fact that he is really unpleasant to listen to. Hitchens is a natural orator and consequently he is able to reach the audience with less effort. I could listen to him all day.

[n8style]

wish he'd calm down a bit

[writersblock26]

@n8style Me, too.

[PainefulMass]

Why do people use the cosmological argument? It was refuted a very, very long time ago. Unless you're going to present some new way of thinking about it that gets around the problems, then you can't use it in a debate. It just wastes everyone's time and makes you look either 1) dumb for not knowing its problems or 2) intellectually dishonest for presenting an argument you know has problems.

[mystisme]

well if their was nothing before the big bang than your god is nothing. he does not exist since nothing exist beforei

[VideoYyy]

One can imagine an intelligent species elsewhere in the universe making exactly these same pronouncements but with a belief in a god-creator totally different in concept from the one postulated here. The one thing we would share would be an unshakable belief in the uniqueness of our individuality. Phooey.

[Catharsis26]

I'm amazed at how consistently even these well-educated religious apologists ignore the fact that attributing the creation of the universe to God creates the problem of explaining God's existence. In the words of Carl Sagan, if God's existence seems to defy explanation, why not subtract a step, and say that the universe's existence seems to defy explanation? If we're to assert that God is eternal, why not subtract a step, and suggest that the universe is eternal?

[MaxikingNimero]

@Catharsis26 or in two words: occam's razor

[VJWU]

@Catharsis26 Because according to most scientists, the universe was NOT eternal.

[deftonesman1]

When Turek started talking about science I actually believed for a second he might present a rational arguement. Instead all of his claims are based utterly around the God of the gaps, this idea that anything that cannot be explained, or seems to complex to be formed naturally MUST have a creator. Using the same tired metaphors of encylopedia Brittanica and "sky messages"

I'm going to watch the next section, I bet he mentions irreducible complexity...hack.

[TheConsciousMatter]

flash drive FTW!!!! lol... did your FD happened to create itself or was it created by the mind???? ah DUH!!

Thats the point of the cell's design ^_^ jeje

[diceyLee]

is he joking about the point about cells containing information means it was designed...... It really is not that amazing, i even have a flash drive that will hold a few hundred copies of the encyclopedia Britannica...

it doesnt prove God....lol

[jdefazio000]

@diceyLee

It does prove that your flash drive was the direct result of an intelligent designer. That's his point..you just made it.

[diceyLee]

@jdefazio000 LOL, if you want to say that everything has a designer then we wont have to look hard to see how incompetent and/or maniacal that designer is......

[Killjeser]

Hey, at least he's got the science right ... until the part where he throws the God of the gaps into the argument.

[mmyyppaarrttyy]

I have a feeling christopher is going to leave this guy for dead.

[Euchrid1973]

Dude! This is a debate! Not a sermon. Two very different things.

[xSilverPhinx]

1)

We as the observing result of a "fine tuned" universe wouldn't intuitivly know the difference between it being fine tuned FOR us to exist and observe it (cosmological and bio evolution is part of a predefined plan)& that we exist and observe the universe BECAUSE the laws of physics & chemistry allow it(as the result).Since we don't know what caused the laws to be what they are so the complexity of the universe could arise from their simplicity.

[xSilverPhinx]

2) Unfortunatly this does not disprove that it was a god who defined them in the first place, just as it doesnt prove he did or that the universe is fine tuned FOR us.

[xxSilverPhinxx]

1:48 "If you're religious it's like looking at god". That's right. I you're religious. Seek and you shall find. If you want to see "god" there, you will.

And what does the Hawkings quote have to do with the argument? Appeal to emotion just after Turek metioned looking at god?

[xxSilverPhinxx]

2:47 "there was nothing. What rocks dream about" So the only answer he can think of is consciousness? If there was something and not nothing than there was consciousness? I think physics has explanation that would have to be discredited before asserting that answer.

[xxSilverPhinxx]

And what created that very complex something (god) out of nothing? And I don't mean nothing: what rocks dream about. I mean nothing as is absolute lack of matter, energy or any physical potential to create the matter or energy (outside the universe).