Zone1 Atheist Hitchens admits defeat after debating the theist John Lennox

[alang1216]

How can you say that if you have no evidence to counter it? Do you have some other way the CMB could have been produced? Where is your evidence for your beliefs?

There are other theories and I'm content to say nothing has been proven.

 

[alang1216]

Do you have any evidence for the laws of nature not existing before space and time? Because I do. I just presented it, right?

I don't know what spacetime is so how could I know when it came to be?

 

[alang1216]

You'd have to tell me what the argument for the FSM is before I could answer that question.

The Letters of FSM. Translated from the Greek I presume.

But what I can tell you is that you routinely dismiss the evidence for the existence of a Creator without having evidence to do so.

Your memory or reading comprehension is rather poor today. I am agnostic on the existence of a Universe Creator. What I generally dismiss, due to the overwhelming evidence, is that the Creator is the God of Abraham.

 

[beautress]

How did you establish there's no proof? that claim means that everything that exists can in no way demonstrate God's existence, that a sweeping and unscientific claim to make.

Those of us who believe in Him know he is immortal, invisible and God only wise who lives in our hearts. It is no surprise that those who are unbelievers cannot perceive his gracious presence as hidden from our eyes as well as theirs. We cannot see love, but we know in our hearts that His love is available to all who have believed in Him, sought and experienced his faithful love, kindness, and favor. In Him is peace with joy and rejoicing. Peace on Earth exists within the heart, wherever believers call upon his name or his son's name. In Him, there no darkness is.

 

[ding]

If you see a closed door, you don't know what, if anything, is inside. You can guess, you can theorize, but you can't know. There are many theories about what predated the BB but little evidence.

The question of what existed before the Big Bang is one of the most profound and challenging in cosmology and philosophy. Here are some perspectives on the topic:

1. Singularity Hypothesis​

• Explanation: According to this idea, the universe was initially in an extremely hot, dense state called a singularity, where the laws of physics as we know them break down. Time and space as we understand them began with the Big Bang, so asking what happened "before" may not be meaningful in the conventional sense.

2. Quantum Fluctuations​

• Explanation: Some theories suggest that the universe could have emerged from a quantum vacuum fluctuation. In quantum mechanics, even "empty" space can experience fluctuations, potentially giving rise to the Big Bang.

3. Multiverse Theory​

• Explanation: One hypothesis posits that our universe is just one of many in a larger multiverse. In this scenario, the Big Bang might be just one event in an infinite series of universes being born, with no definitive "before" because time might not be linear across different universes.

4. Cyclic or Oscillating Universe​

• Explanation: Some theories propose that the universe goes through endless cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches (where the universe collapses back into a singularity and then explodes again). In this view, our Big Bang might be just the latest in a series of such events, with no true beginning or end.

5. Philosophical and Theological Views​

• Explanation: Some perspectives argue that the concept of "before the Big Bang" might be beyond human comprehension, requiring a different framework of understanding, potentially involving metaphysical or theological explanations. For instance, some religious interpretations suggest that a divine entity could exist outside of time and space, initiating the Big Bang.

6. Unknowns and Limits of Science​

• Explanation: It's also possible that current scientific tools and theories are insufficient to fully explain what existed before the Big Bang, and it might remain one of the great mysteries of the universe.

Summary:​

The question of what existed before the Big Bang touches on the boundaries of science and philosophy. Theories range from scientific models like quantum fluctuations and multiverse concepts to more speculative or philosophical ideas. However, there is no definitive answer, and it remains an area of active inquiry and debate.

Where's your evidence? The CMB is literally evidence which has no other explanation.

And you don't think you have religious dogma.

 

[ding]

The Letters of FSM. Translated from the Greek I presume.


Your memory or reading comprehension is rather poor today. I am agnostic on the existence of a Universe Creator. What I generally dismiss, due to the overwhelming evidence, is that the Creator is the God of Abraham.

When you've lost the battle change wars?

 

[ding]

There are other theories and I'm content to say nothing has been proven.

Do you have any evidence that says the CMB wasn't created from paired particle production?

 

[ding]

I don't know what spacetime is so how could I know when it came to be?

Really? You don't know what spacetime is and you are in a conversation about the origin of the universe?

 

[ding]

The BB may have been an event we can't comprehend, like a spacetime/energy/matter phase change.

The thing is the EVIDENCE says it's not. The EVIDENCE says the universe popped into existence. Would you say you are big on EVIDENCE unless it's something you don't want to believe?

 

[jbander]

What are you saying this means. Good grief!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What are you saying this means. Good grief!

The thread's title is what I'm saying:

Atheist Hitchens admits defeat after debating the theist John Lennox​

 

[jbander]

The thread's title is what I'm saying:

Atheist Hitchens admits defeat after debating the theist John Lennox​

Why post the video when it does in no way show Hitchens admit to defeat. That's just stupid.

 

[alang1216]

Where's your evidence? The CMB is literally evidence which has no other explanation.

And you don't think you have religious dogma.

So what is the 'only' explanation? Creation by a supernatural intelligence? What is your evidence besides the fact the universe exists and you don't know of any other way it could have happened? Do you know how this act of creation was accomplished? Do you know anything about this Creator beyond it or them being powerful and intelligent?

 

[alang1216]

When you've lost the battle change wars?

My position has not changed.

 

[alang1216]

Do you have any evidence that says the CMB wasn't created from paired particle production?

None. I also have no evidence the CMB was not the work of the FSM.

 

[alang1216]

Really? You don't know what spacetime is and you are in a conversation about the origin of the universe?

I really don't know, please tell me what it is. What is it made of? How does it get distorted by mass? Is it empty or full of energy? How many dimensions does it contain? Is it in our universe or is our universe in it?

 

[alang1216]

The thing is the EVIDENCE says it's not. The EVIDENCE says the universe popped into existence. Would you say you are big on EVIDENCE unless it's something you don't want to believe?

Not all evidence is equally compelling or convincing. You may be convinced you have the answer, I am not.

 

[ding]

So what is the 'only' explanation? Creation by a supernatural intelligence? What is your evidence besides the fact the universe exists and you don't know of any other way it could have happened? Do you know how this act of creation was accomplished? Do you know anything about this Creator beyond it or them being powerful and intelligent?

Paired particle production is the only explanation for the CMB.

What is the evidence for paired particle production producing the CMB? e=mc^2, super collider results, etc.

Do I know how this act of creation was accomplished? a chain reaction of paired particle production

Do I know anything about this creator? I could learn the same things I could learn from studying something you created. What is it you think I could learn from studying something you created?

 

[ding]

My position has not changed.

The reality is you are still arguing against a creator even though you tried to say you were agnostic about a creator but were certain it's not the God of Abraham.

In other words, your actions don't match your words.

 

[ding]

None. I also have no evidence the CMB was not the work of the FSM.

You also have no reasonable narrative for the FSM. And by that I mean if you had said the FSM was eternal and unchanging, creating, moralistic, providential and the source of natural rights, I'd be able to say that narrative of the FSM is consistent with my study of what was created. But that's not what you have done. You throw the FSM out like you do Santa. Which is to say no basis of reason; no thoughtfulness whatsoever; just an argument devoid of intellect. It's just a really dumb argument.

But putting that aside, you do have ample evidence that the CMB was produced from paired particle production and no evidence to say it wasn't. Yet you still reject the universe being created from matter that did not pre-exist. You pick and choose what you want to believe and your process is not based upon evidence. It's based upon feelings.