How do you feel about atheists?

[MrEmpiricism]

Nothing is the absence of something. Much like cold is the absence of heat. Just like the example of temperature and how absolute zero cannot be reached, nothing cannot be reached physically. So I agree that science cannot observe or study nothing and its properties. Then again, belief in science as the only way to know something cannot be empiracally verified.

Ok so that is the concept of nothing, now can you demonstrate it is possible for there not to be something? And without examining the properties of this nothing, how do you know something can’t come from it?

 

[Faithdancer]

And that is the problem, you are thinking like a child.

 

[Faithdancer]

Nothing is the absence of something.

But how can we know this?

 

[JD1789]

Ok so that is the concept of nothing, now can you demonstrate it is possible for there not to be something? And without examining the properties of this nothing, how do you know something can’t come from it?

Of course you can’t. If you could, it wouldn’t be nothing. The property of nothing is completely reliant on the negation of something. This is a question of logic and philosophy. Surely you uphold that logic exists and that there are rules that cannot be broken. The scientific method that you believe in would be based on this, would it not?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

***“And eminent astrophysicists agree-- before the “Big Bang” there was no time and no space. Even a child can understand that there had to be a defining agent that started it all.” ***

Please enlighten us all, what does it mean to start something without TIME?

****“Logically, that agent was and is outside of time and space and all powerful.” ****

Logically it is all powerful, I cant wait to see this one. By all means please provide us with the exact logical steps you used to reach that conclusion…

The extraordinary fine tuning of the universe also indicates that this agent was and is intelligent. To paraphrase Aquinas: "This, we call God."

The fine tuning argument is utter nonsense, firstly it is utterly meaningless to apply statistics retrospectively. Secondly you have no way of working out he probability of a value unless you know the probabilities and range of the distributions. So I am all ears.

As far as flies appearing magically from rotting meat…

Arrgh biogenesis lol. Abiogenesis explains the origin of protocells, so please explain how you know this didn’t happen multiple times on early earth.

See this is the problem, even a child might understand your arguments but anyone with an understanding of science can see they are nonsense.

 

[JD1789]

But how can we know this?

Science sure as heck can’t tell us. What good is science? I guess it pays the bills…

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Of course you can’t. If you could, it wouldn’t be nothing. The property of nothing is completely reliant on the negation of something. This is a question of logic and philosophy. Surely you uphold that logic exists and that there are rules that cannot be broken. The scientific method that you believe in would be based on this, would it not?

Yes, there are logical absolutes. However they have nothing to do with nothing, excuse the pun. Furthermore I not aware of any logical steps that have been used to demonstrate it is possible for there to actually be nothing, as far as I am aware it is conceptual, like its opposite - Infinity.

 

[Faithdancer]

***“And eminent astrophysicists agree-- before the “Big Bang” there was no time and no space. Even a child can understand that there had to be a defining agent that started it all.” ***

Please enlighten us all, what does it mean to start something without TIME?

****“Logically, that agent was and is outside of time and space and all powerful.” ****
Logically it is all powerful, I cant wait to see this one. By all mean please provide us with the exact logical steps you used to reach that conclusion…

The extraordinary fine tuning of the universe also indicates that this agent was and is intelligent. To paraphrase Aquinas: "This, we call God."

The fine tuning argument is utter nonsense, firstly it is utterly meaningless to apply statistics retrospectively. Secondly you have no way of working out he probability of a value unless you know the probabilities and range of the distributions. So I am all ears.

As far as flies appearing magically from rotting meat…

Arrgh biogenesis lol. Abiogenesis explains the origin of protocells, so please explain how you know this didn’t happen multiple times on early earth.

See this is the problem, even a child might understand your arguments but anyone with an understanding of science can see they are nonsense.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

As I thought :yup:

 

[Faithdancer]

Back to the original post:



Of course this cartoon should have many more panels, regressing ad infinitum et ad absurdum.

 

[estesbob]

***“And eminent astrophysicists agree-- before the “Big Bang” there was no time and no space. Even a child can understand that there had to be a defining agent that started it all.” ***

Please enlighten us all, what does it mean to start something without TIME?

****“Logically, that agent was and is outside of time and space and all powerful.” ****

Logically it is all powerful, I cant wait to see this one. By all means please provide us with the exact logical steps you used to reach that conclusion…

The extraordinary fine tuning of the universe also indicates that this agent was and is intelligent. To paraphrase Aquinas: "This, we call God."

The fine tuning argument is utter nonsense, firstly it is utterly meaningless to apply statistics retrospectively. Secondly you have no way of working out he probability of a value unless you know the probabilities and range of the distributions. So I am all ears.

As far as flies appearing magically from rotting meat…

Arrgh biogenesis lol. Abiogenesis explains the origin of protocells, so please explain how you know this didn’t happen multiple times on early earth.

See this is the problem, even a child might understand your arguments but anyone with an understanding of science can see they are nonsense.

And how did something come from nothing and how did lifes come from non life. Science has all sorts of educated guesses as to what happened after these two occurrences but no exclamation as how the building blocks of evolution came about in the first place

 

[JD1789]

Yes, there are logical absolutes. However they have nothing to do with nothing, excuse the pun. Furthermore I not aware of any logical steps that have been used to demonstrate it is possible for there to actually be nothing, as far as I am aware it is conceptual, like its opposite - Infinity.

Yet we use infinity all the time in science, do we not? Can logical absolutes be empiracally verified? I’ve always been terrible with mathematical proofs, so this is a legitimate question. Haha

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Ignore guys like me and like MrEmpiricism (in so much as how you feel about nonbelievers). Ignore guys that agree with you, like JD1789. There are sure to be others reading this thread who may be questioning how science and faith mesh. You likely want to address MrEmpiricism’s responses if you want those people on the fence to consider your position.

Edited because me no write good.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not even sure that is a valid question, is it even possible for there to be nothing? If so where would it exist, what even is it? Until someone can show me “nothing”, whatever that even is I have no idea what that would even mean?

In order to understand what “nothing” is, one has to have the ability to think in the abstract.

The only observations we have in this case, is something can come from something.

I think this is a trenchant point. It is a remarkable position. It limns quite well the absurdity that must be swallowed in order to believe that a godless universe exists.

“It must be true that something can come from nothing!”
“It must be true that 2 parallel lines can intersect each other!”
“It must be true that a bachelor can be married!”

 

[JD1789]

Ignore guys like me and like MrEmpiricism (in so much as how you feel about nonbelievers). Ignore guys that agree with you, like JD1789. There are sure to be others reading this thread who may be questioning how science and faith mesh. You likely want to address MrEmpiricism’s responses if you want those people on the fence to consider your position.

Edited because me no write good.

Ignore guys like all of us and read Fr. Robert Spitzer and Peter Kreeft if you are one of the anonymonous observes of this thread. I will the the first to admit that I don’t actually know anything I’m talking about.

 

[Faithdancer]

Ignore guys like me and like MrEmpiricism (in so much as how you feel about nonbelievers). Ignore guys that agree with you, like JD1789. There are sure to be others reading this thread who may be questioning how science and faith mesh. You likely want to address MrEmpiricism’s responses if you want those people on the fence to consider your position.

Edited because me no write good.

First, I don’t respond to ad hominems and second, I don’t respond to anyone who deliberately insults God and Scripture.

As far as the general correlation of Genesis, Job, and other biblical passages with the Big Bang, I think that has been discussed sufficiently. I won’t be baited by sophistry into an endless Mobius strip of doubt and circular thinking.
’
Either one accepts that God created the universe, or one doesn’t. If one denies Christ and is blinded by sin, one will not accept the reality of a divine creator no matter what is said.

 

[Faithdancer]

Ignore guys like all of us and read Fr. Robert Spitzer and Peter Kreeft if you are one of the anonymonous observes of this thread. I will the the first to admit that I don’t actually know anything I’m talking about.

Apparently I “ignored” you because I haven’t responded to every single one of your posts, JD. Sorry about that!

 

[MrEmpiricism]

And how did something come from nothing and how did lifes come from non life. Science has all sorts of educated guesses as to what happened after these two occurrences but no exclamation as how the building blocks of evolution came about in the first place

The only people claiming something came from nothing are the religious. Abiogenesis is what you are referring to and it is supported by plenty of empirical evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

It is not as simple as that, nice try though

Well, yes and no.

We have established one very simple truth: we agree that it is ALWAYS wrong to torture children for fun.

There is nothing complicated about that, eh?

I believe there are cases when there is objective right and wrong, but the point is it has to be taken on a case by case basis.

Some things, yes.
Some things, no.

That is, there is NO CASE, at all, where we would consider that it may be right to torture children for fun.

There may be a case when it is moral to lie or steal–and here you are correct. It may need to be taken on a “case by case basis.”

It is immoral for person A to torture someone for fun
It is NOT immoral for person A to torture an evil person to save 10000 innocent lives.

The action is the same, and given that absolution morals refers to “actions”, clearly I do not accept absolute morals. Like is said the case you mentioned you added a qualifier to the action, an it was the qualifier that made it immoral, NOT the action.

It sounds like you are embracing the Catholic position which is: we consider the act itself, the intention and the situation in evaluating the morality of a particular action.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know if something can come from nothing? What is nothing? How can I know ANYTHING about, or what can come from it, until you A. tell me what it is, and B. show there was a time where there ever was nothing?

When you start to evoke nothing, I simply have no idea what you are taking about.

I fear this is because you cannot think in the abstract?