Challenge: There's No Possibility of a Creator

[height76]

"there was no time for a creator to have existed" this is positivism gone bonkers.

[Teachthecross]

What exactly is non-physical time?

[estoboy29]

perhaps the most misunderstood components about realizing the nature of reality is the question upon what is god and this which is creating even now. for no atom is self sustainable on its own without a force driving it to change or not either way what is this which is allowing one to be aware of this at all?for this Consciousness is not matter so what is this?Buddhism knows through practice and investigation of thyself yet all science does is external not taking into account ones own power/will

[inkling43]

Philosphical Naturalism does not equal Science. It has only preempted it for its own purposes: to provide a comfortable place for those who do not want to be reponsible to anyone (a Creator God) other than themselves. This harkens toward amorality in which the initiating the Holocoust and rescuing its victims are equally acceptable. If you want to live in that kind of world that is up to you. Believing in a God who is there beyond space and time, is not only more satisfying, it's more reasonable

[inkling43]

Philosphical Naturalism does not equal Science. It has only preempted it for its own purposes: to provide a comfortable place for those who do not want to be reponsible to anyone (a Creator God) other than themselves. This harkens toward amorality in which the initiating the Holocoust and rescuing its victims are equally acceptable. If you want to live in that kind of world that is up to you. Believing in a God who is there beyond space and time, is not only more satisfying, it's more reasonable

[SensusDivinitatis7]

Something cannot exist because we are not able observe it? Acknowledging the boundaries of science does not mean to ignore what science says.

[middleman777]

Excellent!

[RickmateNZ]

Reminder to all, that this debate isn't a scientific debate, but a philosophical one, because what happens outside our universe/time domain simply cannot be examined with science. Hawking is a good mathematician, but a poor philosopher, (something btw) that is judged not but scientists, but by proven philosophers. Gregs argument and rebuttal is perfectly valid with this in mind. Having said that, Hawkings view doesn't even make scientific sense. What do you call the 'moment' before the big bang?

[scrtwpnx]

by the way, the old guy's logic is also circular as he assumes there is a time before physical time

[SensusDivinitatis7]

@scrtwpnx

No, his assumption only shows that its logically possible to avoid Hawking's conclusion.

[scrtwpnx]

@SensusDivinitatis7 and i'm pointing out the issue with using that argument. but i do understand what he says, and it is fairly feasible granted you believe in fairy tales and imaginary friends.

[SensusDivinitatis7]

@scrtwpnx

Its feasible in terms of logic. Thus its no fallacy.

[scrtwpnx]

@SensusDivinitatis7 didn't say it was a fallacy. i'm just saying that his claim is absurd as far as science is concerned.

but again, yes it is feasible

[SensusDivinitatis7]

@scrtwpnx

Well, you have claimed that he is engaging in circular reasoning which is an informal fallacy. However, science is not concerned with metaphysics which is a branch of philosophy. I don't see how his argument is philosophically flawed or absurd.

[scrtwpnx]

@SensusDivinitatis7

scientifically, a time before time does not exist atm because we cannot measure/observe it. however we can see back into the past close to the theoretical big bang. we can see all the dust clouds. therefore i do not accept his assumption that there is a time before time.

however, this man chooses to ignore scientific observation and theory, and engage in purely philosophical arguments. so yes, he is correct. it is feasible that there is a time before time.

[SensusDivinitatis7]

@scrtwpnx

Something cannot exist because we are not able observe it? Acknowledging the boundaries of science does not mean to ignore what science says.

[scrtwpnx]

@SensusDivinitatis7 as far as we know, the time before time does not exist because we cannot measure and observe it. let me put it this way, you believe in unicorns and cyclopses?

[SensusDivinitatis7]

@scrtwpnx

I don't believe that something can come out of nothing.

[scrtwpnx]

@SensusDivinitatis7 and that's why it is called the big bang theory, not the big bang law. it's the best theory we have so far on the creation of the universe.

also, god is something. where did he come from? just a thought

[SensusDivinitatis7]

@scrtwpnx

According to the big bang theory the universe has a beginning and all who hold that whatever begins to exist needs a cause can argue for a transcendent immaterial cause of the universe. Mathematically speaking you say that we don't exist.

In Philosopy we distinguish between contingent and necessary things. Are you familiar with the concept of "prime reality"? Atheists were unhappy because of the big bang theory since they were no longer able to say that the universe is prime reality.

[scrtwpnx]

@SensusDivinitatis7 again, the big bang theory is just a theory. it has not been proven. however, making up random stuff and attributing that to the creation of the universe is not the way to go. maybe there is the christian god, but there is no proof of that, therefore as far as we are concerned, he does not exist.

all religions claim they are the right one. how many of them are out there? hundreds, thousands? you feeling lucky?

[scrtwpnx]

the issue with that argument is the same with all fantasy and science fiction shows/games/movies. if the writers cannot explain something logically, in fantasy, they attribute the unexplainable to magic, and in science fiction, they attribute the unexplainable to some technology that humans do not understand. as you can see, those are hogwash answers, just as the "god's time"

[scrtwpnx]

the man is basically saying that time as humans know it, is created by god. therefore the time before the big bang is "god's time" for lack of a better term.

[TheFaithHunter]

Craig has good thoughts on Hawking's conclusion. Also check out JohananRaatz channel on these subjects

[thickshadesSUB]

Hawking's flaw: 1. Linear Time 2. Creator of Time 3. Big Bang.

1. Only our time is linear.

2. God created time.

3. "Bang" wasn't "big."

[Canlander7]

Another challenge owned.... ARRRRRRRRRRRR!!! ;)

[ivanisavich]

That's your response? Magic god time? Really?

[KBrimstone]

the didn't mention simultaneous causation. Which Hawkins also ignores. another live option on the table.

[MetalShado]

I never thought of time as a physical or spiritual thing, but more like a concept or measurement of duration. Like the amount of duration from point A to point B.

[HoParoikos]

If nothing can happen outside of time, then how did the materialist's big bang happen? It had to have happened out of this so-called impossible non-time scenario.

[TherionNLD]

@HoParoikos Can you make an argument without resorting to name calling? I don't claim to know exactly how the universe was born and what or who the cause was. But I think saying you don't know is a more honest position then claiming an invisible space daddy did it who wants you to worship a 2000-year old zombie-jew so he can party with your ghost forever.

[HoParoikos]

@TherionNLD name calling? ha. there are like maybe 10 atheists for every state that can engage in any sort of conversation without name calling. by using phrases that portray that God concept as ridiculous as possible, you are implicitly doing the SAME thing, so shut up.

[TherionNLD]

@HoParoikos Just by illustrating how strange your beliefs sound to me doesn't mean I'm resorting to name calling. How often do you hear theists saying "Those atheists think everything came from nothing by random chance! LOLOLOL!" It's using humor to make a point.

My argument was that admitting you don't know all the answers is better then simply filling the gaps with religion. People have done that in the past and it didn't lead to further scientific understanding.

[HoParoikos]

@TherionNLD No that's just another incarnation of poisoning the well, which is an implicit ad hominem. When you pulled the ridiculous and hypocritical "god of the gaps" card, you probably had the image of a caveman or something in your head because as an atheist you're just too clever! Except, the only other option is to fill the gaps with naturalism and to accept it uncritically, a priori. that is not any more rational.

[TherionNLD]

@HoParoikos I didn't have cavemen in mind but people who opposed scientific progress because they felt it transgressed into religious domain. This is even happening today with the Creationism - Intelligent Design movement. Evolution out, with all it's accumulated knowledge, God did it as stated in the Bible in.

I don't mind if a gap in knowledge remains a gap until new data is available. If it did turn out to be God then I'll accept and deal with that. What's so hypocritical about that?

[RickmateNZ]

@TherionNLD It is not true or fair to state the case that ID challenges evolution because it 'transgressed into the religious domain', although it is true that some may feel that way. All the recognized ID proponents challenge it simply on the basis that it is flawed science. The Theistic conclusions they come to as a result of examining the science has nothing to do with the argument against evolution itself, which when examined fairly fails completely without any reference to the bible at all!

[TherionNLD]

@RickmateNZ Have you ever seen a creationist criticize any scientific theory other then evolution / big bang cosmology? Why don't they criticize general relativity or germ theory? Because those don't transgress into religious domain. Evolution does.

[HoParoikos]

@TherionNLD wait...didn't I just make an argument without name calling on the particular post you replied to? or cross-examination.

[TherionNLD]

"But just because that's the only thing they can measure doesn't mean that's the only thing that exists"

Yeah, and just because you can make something up doesn't mean it's a plausible explanation.

[HoParoikos]

@TherionNLD moron. they didn't make it up.

[2ceBorn]

I think you guys do great work. But I'm not really fond of the use of the word "owned". It sounds really arrogant and anyone can say they owned anyone. The argument should just speak for itself. I also liked the poohrates argh! better.