Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[ding]

Except for that part where it was created from nothing in accordance with the laws of nature.

False. That can also be explained without sky daddies.

Ok, do it.

Sure:

The natural laws did not exist in our local universe until its space and its real time began. Before this point was a state we cannot describe. Before that state, there was nothing, and the previously stated state spontaneously formed from the latter stated state.

I.E., the forefront of modern cosmogeny theory.

Our local universe? What are you talking about?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The creation of the universe followed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics.

Not necessarily both, no. Our laws of quantum mechanics may not even have existed, until the beginning of our local spacetime. And nothing in the model i proposed violates conservation. That's why the model persists in modern theory.

 

[ding]

The creation of the universe followed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics.

Not necessarily both, no. Our laws of quantum mechanics may not even have existed, until the beginning of our local spacetime. And nothing in the model i proposed violates conservation. That's why the model persists in modern theory.

You actually haven’t proposed a model or explained how the universe was created or provided any link or video.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You actually haven’t proposed a model

...except the one to which you responded directly, which makes your comments bizarre.

I dont have to post a video or links. I only have to demonstrate a possoble explanation that doesnt involve sky daddies. As such, just as everyone must admit that your iron aged myth is a possible explanation, you have to admit the same of my possible explanation.

But that will never happen, because your faith requires 100% obedience and faithfulness. This places a much greater burden on you than the burden I carry, in this subtopic. Actually, you place it on yourself by insisting to know which of the possibilities is the true one. And,having nothing but dusty old rhetoric at your disposal, you are left with your parlor tricks.

 

[Hollie]

My discussion on the origin of the universe is a scientific discussion, not a religious discussion.

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Precisely! As I've written elsewhere:

The conservation laws do not forbid the creation of a universe out of nothing, and quantum mechanics tells us that whatever is not forbidden by conservation laws is not only possibly but will occur with some probability. Not only does this evince a timeless cause of the cosmos, but the simultaneity of its effect, namely, the beginning of time. The laws of physics that govern the development of the universe are the very same that affected its creation. In other words, the laws of physics are fundamental and ontologically precede the universe.

That implies mind.​

Nothing in that rambling essay suggests any gods are required.

 

[Ringtone]

Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

Enough of this horseshit. I don't have time to figure out why you need to "debunk" someone else's opinions much less put them down as baby talk, as much as I don't care why they need to prove you "wrong" as well. Anyone ever consider that BOTH sides are right? Why is there no room for difference of opinion without the adversarial process -- -- -- God is not something you can dissect and rationally analyze much less measure with a slide rule.

Those that have eyes to see God see Him in God's own time and do not need convincing; those that do not should not and will not. Not unless things change. Learn that, live that and move on and stop worrying about what others think.

You're missing the point of the OP. Adam's Puddle Analogy Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy.has absolutely nothing to do with the fine-tuned problem and the anthropic principle thereof, which are very real and must be resolved. The fine-tuned problem has absolutely nothing to do with the evolutionary adaptation or occurrence of life in universes that have the elemental and astronomical structure to support life; it goes to the statistical improbability of mindless nature producing the elemental chemistry and astronomical structure that can support life in the first place, that is what the fine-tuned argument for God's existence is predicated on.

Again:

[T]he finely tuned argument does not go to the occurrence or evolution of life in any given habitable environment after the fact; it goes to the apparent fact that the astronomical structures and systems, and the elemental diversity that are necessary for any kind of life at all to occur or evolve wouldn't exist in the first place if any one of the physical constants or initial conditions were significantly different in this universe or in any other. Indeed, according to the standard model, if the strength of the cosmic inflation of the Big Bang had varied by 1 part in 10^60 the universe would have never reached the expansion phase at all, but would have collapsed back onto itself faster than you can say lickety-split!
​

Hence, the cyclical and multiverse cosmogonies of the weak anthropic principle vs the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle per the cosmogony entailing only one universe in the history of time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ringtone

Third Party

JimBowie1958

G.T.

hobelim

BreezeWood

Is the following statement true, or is it false?

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then a millimeter is equal to a cubic kilometer."

 

[BreezeWood]

Still, you believe your way and they will believe their way-just as strongly.

So true though I have a reason to believe whereas they only have an emotionally negative reaction and rejection of the very concept of a supreme being.

.

So true though I have a reason to believe whereas they only have an emotionally negative reaction and rejection of the very concept of a supreme being.

delusional preservation, good luck ...

 

[BreezeWood]

.
mad theists are by nature irrational the opposite of factual atheist. the ism's are the difference.

Mad theists? Factual atheists?

You want some facts? The universe literally popped into existence out of nothing 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

How’s that for facts?

One theory among many

Really? Name the many.

No-do some research on religions-you may learn something as I have.

Besides, you weren't talking about religions, you claimed that there are many theories on the creation of the universe.

Can you name the many theories?

.

Besides, you weren't talking about religions, you claimed that there are many theories on the creation of the universe.

you are confused, the universe has always been and will always be.

 

[Ringtone]

There is no empirical evidence. You can't just point to something and say that is evidence of X. You first have to demonstrate there is a connection between the evidence and X. I can't pick up a bit of sandstone from the ground and claim it is evidence of snakes. In order to demonstrate the connection between the empirical evidence, you first must determine what are the properties of God. Otherwise, you could be staring at the evidence and not know. Or just assuming something is evidence on the basis that you want it to be. If you don't know the properties, you can't make the connection with any evidence.

The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for God's existence. What else could the evidence possibly be? Define God and the connection is manifest. To define God is to extrapolate precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is.

I think, therefore I am. I think about God, therefore he exists. Easy peasy.

I made no such argument.

Rather, define God. The idea of God is that of the Creator. Creator of what? The universe, that's what!

I say again:

The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for God's existence. What else could the empirical evidence possibly be? Define God and the connection is manifest. To define God is to extrapolate precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is.
​

Finally, both the empirical and rational evidence tell us that the universe began to exist; i.e., the universe is not the eternal ground of existence!

Easy peasy.

 

[BreezeWood]

So the universe being created from nothing isn't empirical evidence?

Why wouldn't everything that has unfolded since the creation of the universe be considered as evidence?

Excellent point
How is all of creation not empirical evidence of a creating force? Are we to assume that all we see and know just showed up in the mail box one day? Isn't a bicycle proof of the bicycle maker?

.

Excellent point
How is all of creation not empirical evidence of a creating force? Are we to assume that all we see and know just showed up in the mail box one day? Isn't a bicycle proof of the bicycle maker?

everything in the universe are the result of a metaphysical force ... the universe itself is benign.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you say “I know there is a god” instead of “I believe there is a god”, yes I do have a problem with you. Because you’re clearly lying. Or delusional.

I know for a fact that God exists. The first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic tell me he necessarily exists, but most importantly, God directly revealed himself to me as well . . . although I'm not sure that's the right way to put it, given that God's creation, including the endowment of his logic on us, is arguably a direct form of communication. The simplest way I can describe it is that he spoke to me with a voice that only the mind can hear.

.

The simplest way I can describe it is that he (they) spoke to me with a voice that only the mind can hear.

and your witness to the event was ....

 

[ding]

You actually haven’t proposed a model

...except the one to which you responded directly, which makes your comments bizarre.

I dont have to post a video or links. I only have to demonstrate a possoble explanation that doesnt involve sky daddies. As such, just as everyone must admit that your iron aged myth is a possible explanation, you have to admit the same of my possible explanation.

But that will never happen, because your faith requires 100% obedience and faithfulness. This places a much greater burden on you than the burden I carry, in this subtopic. Actually, you place it on yourself by insisting to know which of the possibilities is the true one. And,having nothing but dusty old rhetoric at your disposal, you are left with your parlor tricks.

Actually you do have to provide something because what you are saying makes no sense. You might as well have saiid unicorns.

That’s so typical you. You can’t discuss any science in any detail at all. You might as well believe in Magic because science is magic to you.

 

[ding]

The model is probably based upon inflation anyway with a beginning of the universe.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is no empirical evidence. You can't just point to something and say that is evidence of X. You first have to demonstrate there is a connection between the evidence and X. I can't pick up a bit of sandstone from the ground and claim it is evidence of snakes. In order to demonstrate the connection between the empirical evidence, you first must determine what are the properties of God. Otherwise, you could be staring at the evidence and not know. Or just assuming something is evidence on the basis that you want it to be. If you don't know the properties, you can't make the connection with any evidence.

The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for God's existence. What else could the evidence possibly be? Define God and the connection is manifest. To define God is to extrapolate precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is.

I think, therefore I am. I think about God, therefore he exists. Easy peasy.

I made no such argument.

Rather, define God. The idea of God is that of the Creator. Creator of what? The universe, that's what!

I say again:

The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for God's existence. What else could the empirical evidence possibly be? Define God and the connection is manifest. To define God is to extrapolate precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is.
​

Finally, both the empirical and rational evidence tell us that the universe began to exist; i.e., the universe is not the eternal ground of existence!

Easy peasy.

.

Rather, define God.

the arbiter between good and evil.

 

[BreezeWood]

Ringtone

Third Party

JimBowie1958

G.T.

hobelim

BreezeWood

Is the following statement true, or is it false?

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then a millimeter is equal to a cubic kilometer."

.

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then a millimeter is equal to a cubic kilometer."

I'll take a guess - no.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually you do have to provide something because what you are saying makes no sense.

No I don't, and yes it does. So I have to provide exactly as many links and videos as you do: zero.

 

[ding]

Actually you do have to provide something because what you are saying makes no sense.

No I don't, and yes it does. So I have to provide exactly as many links and videos as you do: zero.

You are one seriously dishonest dude, bro.

No worries examination allowed. Got it.

 

[diver52]

Neither.

...no.

Neither.

...no.

I disagree.

 

[ding]

Mad theists? Factual atheists?

You want some facts? The universe literally popped into existence out of nothing 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

How’s that for facts?

One theory among many

Really? Name the many.

No-do some research on religions-you may learn something as I have.

Besides, you weren't talking about religions, you claimed that there are many theories on the creation of the universe.

Can you name the many theories?

.

Besides, you weren't talking about religions, you claimed that there are many theories on the creation of the universe.

you are confused, the universe has always been and will always be.

That’s stupid talk.