Scientific Atheism

[wanstronian]

It’s all history
newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm

Sorry, you seem to be having trouble understanding English.

Whether or not St Paul wrote something is not the issue. I want to to prove that what he said happened, really happened.

That’s true for Wuthering Heights because it’s a work of fiction. That’s the genre.

No evidence that the bible is anything different. Nothing of any consequence in the bible can be proven to be true.

However;

• St Paul wrote to the Church of Rome, a real Church. That’s historical fact.
• All the people Paul wrote to and about in his book to the Church of Rome, are real people, in their historical context.
• All attested to by eyewitnesses and confirmed by Tradition for 2000 years

Not sure how these assertions add validity, sorry.

NASA puts age to the universe of 13.7 B years +/- 1%. And they stand by this age.

Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, agrees. The universe has not existed forever. He said the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang,

So far, so good.

So the universe, i.e. everything you see, is not eternal. It is not infinit.

Okay

It had a beginning from NOTHING.

Whoop! Whoop! Assertion alert!! Prove that statement. Prove there was Nothing before the Universe.

And it all will have an end.

In its current configuration, almost certainly.

Therefore because it had a beginning, before it was there, there was NOTHING.

Again, no evidence to support this. We don’t know that the Universe came from ‘nothing.’

So;

• how did NOTHING + NOTHING or NOTHING x NOTHING = SOMETHING?
• how did purpose enter into the process to make ANYTHING from NOTHING in the first place? iow, who caused the first cause and why do it?.

• Firstly, I repeat, we don’t know that the universe came from NOTHING. Secondly, even if it did, there does NOT need to have been a purpose.

infinite regression of causes leads to the uncaused cause.

You what? And you’re happy with that as an explanation? “It just did, okay?”

And all you’re doing is denying.

Yes. Based on a lack of evidence, both physical and logical. Why would I take any other stance when there isn’t a shred of evidence?

Something coming from nothing

• requires creation. It won’t/can’t happen on it’s own, Creation requires a creator with purpose.

• Nope. No purpose required.

• Life coming from nothing, demands a Life-Giver. Scientists can’t create life from non-life. Life can only come from life.

Debatable - there is plenty of theory describing how ‘life’ as we recognise it, could have come about from ‘primordial soup.’

• Laws Demand a Lawgiver. That’s by definition, design. everything from the values of fundamental forces like electromagnetism and gravity, to the relative masses of the various subatomic particles etc etc etc The slightest tinkering with a single one of scores of basic laws and relationships in nature would have resulted in a universe very different from the one we inhabit…all the precise values and relationships, and laws existing exactly as they are from the beginning. That didn’t happen randomly but on purpose. It took a designer. putting all this just right, from the beginning.

Why? Just because things might have been different? Do you not realise how flawed this argument is?

To sustain the universe from the beginning shows incredible design and purpose by its maker… Scientists recognize that laws had to be in place from the very beginning. As Hawking acknowledged in The Nature of Space and Time: The only way to have scientific theory is if the laws of physics hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe. That shows design, and design requires a designer.

Be careful how you phrase your citations. Hawkings stopped after the word, “universe.” He did not postulate design - that is just your contribution. I’m not disputing Hawkings’ statement, but design is not a natural consequence.

Is it reasonable, then, to assume that these laws came about from nothing…from random chance? NOPE!

Actually, yes. Why not?

The existence of such design and predictable laws in nature makes clear a master intelligence and Lawgiver. That’s why Paul said there is no excuse for one to deny God.

Then he is wrong. The lack of evidence is the perfect reason to deny God.

• Design Demands a Designer. And predictable physical laws throughout the universe, is evidence of intelligent design.

Of course it isn’t, what codswallop.

None of your bullet points above is immune to infinite regression, which you have chosen to answer by asserting a ‘first cause.’ That might be a convenient answer to you, but it is wholly illogical and utterly unjustifiable. If you won’t see that, it’s can only be because you don’t want your bubble to burst.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian
*
Why would I take any other stance when there isn’t a shred of evidence?*

Why would you take your own stance when there isn’t a shred of evidence for it? It always amuses me when the folks in your camp demand evidence for a designed universe but can offer no evidence at all for a universe that was not designed.

If there is no Lawgiver, how did Nature give itself its own laws? Where’s **your **evidence?

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein (by no means a Catholic)

 

[steve_b]

Prove there was Nothing before the Universe.
We don’t know that the Universe came from 'nothing.

The universe has age. Therefore it isn’t infinit, it had a beginning. If it didn’t have a beginning it would be infinit which it is NOT. So…If there is something older than the universe, that came before it, what is it?
w:

I repeat, we don’t know that the universe came from NOTHING.

Then what did the universe come from
w:

Secondly, even if it did, there does NOT need to have been a purpose.

Who says? For every cause there is an effect. No cause no effect. The first cause demands a purpose.
w:

there is plenty of theory describing how ‘life’ as we recognise it, could have come about from ‘primordial soup.’

A theory about a soup that had life in it already.
w:

Be careful how you phrase your citations. Hawkings stopped after the word, “universe.” He did not postulate design - that is just your contribution.

Hawking has said all sorts of stuff.

for example

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]

 

[Mersenne]

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]

NEXT LINE

“But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”

Your quote was just a preamble for him saying “but it’s not like that so god can’t exist”

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian

Why would I take any other stance when there isn’t a shred of evidence?

Why would you take your own stance when there isn’t a shred of evidence for it? It always amuses me when the folks in your camp demand evidence for a designed universe but can offer no evidence at all for a universe that was not designed.

And it bemuses me when someone demands evidence for the non-existence of something. There seems to be something in the brain of a theist that makes them unable to accept the premise of atheism - that is the denial of the existence of God, usually based on the complete lack of* evidence***. NOT the replacement of this perceived gap with something else. Why do you find this so difficult to comprehend? Let me make it clear:*** Atheists don’t claim to know all the mysteries of the universe***. That doesn’t mean that God is the only solution. If you believe it does, then with all due respect, you’re an idiot.

If there is no Lawgiver, how did Nature give itself its own laws? Where’s **your **evidence?

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein (by no means a Catholic)

Ah, you’re trotting out Einstein again. Quelle suprise. To be honest I’m surprised you use him so much, given the wealth of other, god-refuting comments he made. Your use of him as some sort of ally is so easily rebutted. I won’t bother to do it again here - you are as aware as I am that Einstein is a weak prop for theists.

 

[wanstronian]

The universe has age. Therefore it isn’t infinit, it had a beginning. If it didn’t have a beginning it would be infinit which it is NOT. So…If there is something older than the universe, that came before it, what is it?

I don’t know - I’ve never claimed to know. That DOESN’T prove that God exists.

Then what did the universe come from

I don’t know - I’ve never claimed to know. That DOESN’T prove that God exists.

Who says?

Please don’t be deliberately obtuse - you’re the one trying to claim a purpose, it’s not for me to prove that there wasn’t, only to point out that it’s not necessary. If you believe there is a purpose, YOU need to PROVE it.

For every cause there is an effect. No cause no effect. The first cause demands a purpose.

Why, other than to satisfy your personal beliefs?

A theory about a soup that had life in it already.

Read up on it if that’s what you think.

Hawking has said all sorts of stuff.

for example

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]

And you think that’s conclusive? Hawking is postulating a possible role for God in the Universe, should he exist. He is NOT advocating the existence of God. Read it again.

 

[steve_b]

NEXT LINE

“But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”

Your quote was just a preamble for him saying “but it’s not like that so god can’t exist”

He poses a hypothetical. A hypothetical that he knows isn’t true because the universe DOES have a beginning. Does he say it was the cause of itself? NO. And if he did he would have to prove it.

 

[Mersenne]

He poses a hypothetical. A hypothetical that he knows isn’t true because the universe DOES have a beginning. Does he say it was the cause of itself? NO. And if he did he would have to prove it.

He was being coy. He gives lectures all the time about how the universe IS self contained, and therefore theories about some kind of pre-universe creator cannot be, if they weren’t absurd enough to begin with. As far as proof, he’s Hawking. Feel free to read his reams of books and papers if you want his proof.

And it should be pointed out that while he used this to disprove any diestic nature of god, like almost all scientists, especially more educated ones, he sees the nonexistence of a god that interferes with the universe, answers prayers, cares about people; to be obvious enough that to claim otherwise is just laughable. No one who is willing to think honestly about the issue can believe in a god.

 

[steve_b]

I don’t know - I’ve never claimed to know. That DOESN’T prove that God exists.

You asked

:

“Prove there was Nothing before the Universe. We don’t know that the Universe came from 'nothing.”

The universe is NOT infinit, it is finite. Which means there was a time when it didn’t exist. What then was before it? Science says the age is 13.7 billion years +/- 1%.

The oldest thing we have to measure is NOT infinit, therefore, it didn’t always exist. Before 13.7 billion years ago + / - 1%… what was there? nothing, unless you have proof of something that existed that is older than that .

Don’t assume there IS something measurable before THAT unless you can prove it… Otherwise you’re expecting me to accept YOUR faith NOT science.

The purpose of this thread is science can explain everything without God.

YOU need to prove scientifically,

• that EVERYTHING was already here…
• or that from NOTHING everything began without reason or a creator…it just happened. Oh and if that can happen…it must be capable of duplicating in a lab.

w:

Please don’t be deliberately obtuse - you’re the one trying to claim a purpose, it’s not for me to prove that there wasn’t, only to point out that it’s not necessary.

Cut to the chase. You’re saying that there wasn’t any purpose. That’s the position you’re taking. Therefore show that

• Everything had no beginning. It was infinit. It was always here, there was no creator
• Life was always here. No creator was necessary
• Laws were always in place. No law-giver was necessary. All the precise values and relationships, and laws existing exactly as they are from the beginning just were…
• Design was always here. No creator was necessary
• Intelligence was already here. Everything was just random

w:

If you believe there is a purpose, YOU need to PROVE it.Why, other than to satisfy your personal beliefs?

Do you have purpose?

 

[steve_b]

He was being coy. He gives lectures all the time about how the universe IS self contained, and therefore theories about some kind of pre-universe creator cannot be, if they weren’t absurd enough to begin with.

where is his proof the universe is self contained, or that a creator cannot be? Because he says so?

It probably depends on who Hawking is appealing to at the time when he writes. He crosses lines.
leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

What’s consuming him right now is why it all happened. This is his new project. He has no answer. Let’s see what he comes up with on THIS one.
m:

And it should be pointed out that while he used this to disprove any diestic nature of god, like almost all scientists, especially more educated ones,

Hawking didn’t disprove God. He just denied him. Therefore God doesn’t exist in Hawking’s mind but it doesn’t disprove God.
m:

he sees the nonexistence of a god that interferes with the universe, answers prayers, cares about people; to be obvious enough that to claim otherwise is just laughable. No one who is willing to think honestly about the issue can believe in a god.

All you’re doing is showing what he denies. Where is his proof God does NOT exist?

 

[Mersenne]

where is his proof the universe is self contained, or that a creator cannot be? Because he says so?

It probably depends on who Hawking is appealing to at the time when he writes. He crosses lines.
leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html

What’s consuming him right now is why it all happened. This is his new project. He has no answer. Let’s see what he comes up with on THIS one.

Hawking didn’t disprove God. He just denied him. Therefore God doesn’t exist in Hawking’s mind but it doesn’t disprove God.

All you’re doing is showing what he denies. Where is his proof God does NOT exist?

I thoroughly responded to all of this, but you edited out the part of my response that covered this. That is incredibly dishonest. Isn’t that unchristian? Why do you continue to do it? It’s been shown twice now that you take scientists words out of context, and now you are taking my words out of context.

 

[steve_b]

I thoroughly responded to all of this, but you edited out the part of my response that covered this. That is incredibly dishonest. Isn’t that unchristian? Why do you continue to do it? It’s been shown twice now that you take scientists words out of context, and now you are taking my words out of context.

Gimme a break!!!

Here is what you "THOROUGHLY" responded to.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5478391&postcount=68

You just don’t want to answer the questions raised.

1. 
   *]where is his proof the universe is self contained, or that a creator cannot be? You didn’t answer this and neither did he.
   *]All you’re doing is showing what he denies. Where is his proof God does NOT exist?
   
   And you say you “***thoroughly” ***answered this?

 

[Mersenne]

Gimme a break!!!

Here is what you "THOROUGHLY" responded to.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5478391&postcount=68

You just don’t want to answer the questions raised.

1. 
   *]where is his proof the universe is self contained, or that a creator cannot be? You didn’t answer this and neither did he.
   *]All you’re doing is showing what he denies. Where is his proof God does NOT exist?
   
   And you say you “***thoroughly” ***answered this?

1. 
   Yes, and you edited it out when you quoted me. I don’t argue with people once they start being dishonest, for example, knowingly misquoting me to make their point better. Especially when this is the third time you’ve been caught taking someone out of context.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, and you edited it out when you quoted me. I don’t argue with people once they start being dishonest, for example, knowingly misquoting me to make their point better. Especially when this is the third time you’ve been caught taking someone out of context.

I answered 3 of your posts. Look over these 3 posts. What was misquoted and what did I “deliberately” misquote of yours? And where did you catch me 3 times doing it?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5478181&postcount=67
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5478974&postcount=70
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5479149&postcount=72

 

[Mersenne]

I answered 3 of your posts. Look over these 3 posts. What was misquoted and what did I “deliberately” misquote of yours? And where did you catch me 3 times doing it?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5478181&postcount=67
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5478974&postcount=70
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5479149&postcount=72

I’ve already pointed out which post you misquoted, I pointed it out the minute you did it, and I pointed out the other quotes you took out of context. Now you’re just trying to scroll the discussion so people don’t see your dishonesty.

 

[steve_b]

I’ve already pointed out which post you misquoted, I pointed it out the minute you did it, and I pointed out the other quotes you took out of context. Now you’re just trying to scroll the discussion so people don’t see your dishonesty.

As I thought. You don’t have the answers to the questions being asked.

 

[Mersenne]

As I thought. You don’t have the answers to the questions being asked.

I already answered all of them.

 

[wanstronian]

You asked

The universe is NOT infinit, it is finite. Which means there was a time when it didn’t exist. What then was before it? Science says the age is 13.7 billion years +/- 1%.

The oldest thing we have to measure is NOT infinit, therefore, it didn’t always exist. Before 13.7 billion years ago + / - 1%… what was there? nothing, unless you have proof of something that existed that is older than that .

Again, the theist’s base problem rears its head. I don’t have to prove that there WASN’T nothing before the universe. You asserted that there WAS nothing - I simply pointed out that there was no proof of this.

Don’t assume there IS something measurable before THAT unless you can prove it… Otherwise you’re expecting me to accept YOUR faith NOT science.

And yet again, you’re getting this the wrong way round. I’m asking you to provide evidence for an assertion that you made. The correct response to this demand is NOT to counter demand evidence that contradicts your assertion. If you make an assertion, the burden of proof is on you. This is a problem that theists consistently have, for obvious reasons.

The purpose of this thread is science can explain everything without God.

Maybe, maybe not; I’m not claiming that science can explain everything without God. I’m just claiming that the fact that it can’t, doesn’t necessitate God.

YOU need to prove scientifically,

• that EVERYTHING was already here…
• or that from NOTHING everything began without reason or a creator…it just happened. Oh and if that can happen…it must be capable of duplicating in a lab.

No, I don’t because I’m not claiming either of those things. I’m claiming there is no evidence to support your contradicting assertions.

Cut to the chase. You’re saying that there wasn’t any purpose. That’s the position you’re taking.

I’ve been cutting to the chase from the start, you’re just refusing to listen because it exposes the weaknesses in your arguments.

Therefore show that

• Everything had no beginning. It was infinit. It was always here, there was no creator
• Life was always here. No creator was necessary
• Laws were always in place. No law-giver was necessary. All the precise values and relationships, and laws existing exactly as they are from the beginning just were…
• Design was always here. No creator was necessary
• Intelligence was already here. Everything was just random

I don’t need to show that - I’m not asserting that those things are true (In fact I dispute ‘design’ in its entirety). But just because atheists are honest and admit they don’t know everything about the universe, do you really think that gives you the right, scientifically, logically and morally, to step in and just claim that “God did it?”

Do you have purpose?

I’m not sure what level you’re asking that question on, but in any case it’s irrelevant to the issue.

Do you not realise that your consistent refusal (inability) to back up your assertions, exposes the inherent and obvious weaknesses in your argument? If your only response is to challenge others on assertions that they haven’t made, then why are you bothering to contribute to the thread? Come on, what have you got, really?

 

[wanstronian]

I already answered all of them.

Second that.

Steve B - look down. There’s no ground underneath you.

 

[steve_b]

Again, the theist’s base problem rears its head. I don’t have to prove that there WASN’T nothing before the universe. You asserted that there WAS nothing - I simply pointed out that there was no proof of this.

NASA gives age to the universe +/- 1% accurate. IOW if challenged, they will defend this position.

The say the universe is not infinit. It had a beginning. Nothing is older than what they have measured. And they know the universe will end. Before that date +/- 1%, 13.7 B years, there was nothing. The fact that the universe is finite shows it started from nothing.

This creates a big problem for atheists.
w:

And yet again, you’re getting this the wrong way round. I’m asking you to provide evidence for an assertion that you made. The correct response to this demand is NOT to counter demand evidence that contradicts your assertion. If you make an assertion, the burden of proof is on you. This is a problem that theists consistently have, for obvious reasons.

Science has made the assertion. The universe is finite. It had a beginning and it will end. You assert it just happened. Well…prove it.
w:

Maybe, maybe not; I’m not claiming that science can explain everything without God. I’m just claiming that the fact that it can’t, doesn’t necessitate God.

Not good enough. Something has to be necessary to create from nothing. If something was there before 13.7 B years ago,

• then you have to disprove NASA
• If something can come from nothing without a creator, you have to prove that can happen scientifically

w:

No, I don’t because I’m not claiming either of those things. I’m claiming there is no evidence to support your contradicting assertions.

Excuse me? Since you deny a creator,

You DO need to prove scientifically,

• that EVERYTHING was already here…and how it got there since it is finite
• or that from NOTHING everything began without reason or a creator…it just happened. Oh and if that can happen…it must be capable of duplicating in a lab.

w:

I’ve been cutting to the chase from the start, you’re just refusing to listen because it exposes the weaknesses in your arguments.I don’t need to show that - I’m not asserting that those things are true (In fact I dispute ‘design’ in its entirety).

Where’s your proof that there is no design?
w:

But just because atheists are honest and admit they don’t know everything about the universe, do you really think that gives you the right, scientifically, logically and morally, to step in and just claim that “God did it?”

You’re saying God did NOT do it. That is an assertion that must be proved. Therefore how did it all happen?
w:

Do you not realise that your consistent refusal (inability) to back up your assertions, exposes the inherent and obvious weaknesses in your argument?

You’ve made the assertion there is no God, and no creator. Therefore, you need to explain how everything I’ve identified over these many posts, happened from nothing. 13.7 B years ago +/- 1%, is the age of the universe. Nothing material is older than that. Since this universe is finite, the material in it had a beginning and will have an end. What was there 16 B years ago? And where did the material that makes up the universe come from?
w:

If your only response is to challenge others on assertions that they haven’t made, then why are you bothering to contribute to the thread? Come on, what have you got, really?

You and your friend have dodged all my points and questions. I ask the same of you. What have you got really?