Why the Universe Doesn't Need a Designer | Hitchens

Hitchens explains why the Universe doesn't need any "causes."

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Hichens
• discussion
• debate
• humanism
• athiest
• atheism
• controversy
• first
• cause
• designer
• universe

[kadene2]

@1tabligh If his "omnipresence is unmistakably and intelligibly evident:", how come the world doesn't get it? How can you still be holding onto these beliefs of ignorant people who thought god spoke in the thunder and epilepsy was demonic possession? If you reject science, then for goodness sakes, stop using computers, trash your cellphone and sell your refrigerator and your car. Use a woodfire to cook, throw out your tv and communicate with carrier pigeons! Enough of this nonsense!

[dahuterschuter]

This guy doesn't understand that his question is bad. No-one ever decided that there ever was nothing, he's just assuming that. He's creating the premise of his question around his own flawed presupposition.

[lacontrabasse]

The information about the Creation that Christopher Hitchens was asking for has now been received.

The Creator has posted a video on YouTube. The message comes to you directly, without the need for transcription or interpretation by iron-age scribes, or analysis by Stephen Hawking. 

The video tells you how you came to be here, outlines the meaning and purpose of your life, and gives you an insight into the future of humankind.

See ' God says sorry. '

[1tabligh]

@TomVodkaCollins We discover the existence of an objective law from within the totality of phenomena that it is capable of interpreting. If, then, the establishment of scientific truth is possible only by means of direct sensation, the majority of scientific truths will have to be discarded, since many scientific facts cannot be perceived by means of sensory experience or testing.

[TomVodkaCollins]

@1tabligh I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage. You can't hear, see, smell, feel or taste it, but I assure it is in there. Prove it's not.

[hyzercreek]

@starofcctv94 Bronze age. Even worse.

[1tabligh]

@starofcctv94 If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.



[starofcctv94]

@1tabligh I apologise for having a different view than you and feel sorry that you do not have the intelligence to grasp the truth.

p.s. I drew a picture of muhamed while I was waiting for your reply (he has a bomb strapped to his chest)

[1tabligh]

@starofcctv94 rioting over people naming teddy bears

___

So much science for this uncivilized brainless pseudo-Scientific Demagogue!

Hiding your ignorance and arrogance behind your stupid pretext of "rioting over people naming teddy bears "!

Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!

The argument of an IGNORANT!

Stupid brainless cuckoo atheist with asinine mind!

[starofcctv94]

@1tabligh Do you acually read what you are writting, it makes no sence, puts no argument across, and makes you sound like a stoned 15 year old who thinks he is a philosopher.

Go back to you cave and resume stoning twelve year old girl's for being raped and rioting over people naming teddy bears after a scizophrenic peadophile, thats what muslims do isn't it?

[1tabligh]

What is called science by the *science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.

All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.

[starofcctv94]

@1tabligh I'm not sure what your argument is you just seem to be spouting nonsence. No scientist will ever admit they know what caused the big bang, you on the other hand do, despite a lack of any evidence for it.