Leading Atheist Philosopher Concludes God's Real

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What I find laughable is the atheists faith in the Big Bang, the Universe, and stuff as being the end of all enquiry.

Your view rests on a misunderstanding or a prejudice. Most atheists support the Scientific Method, and the scientific method clearly states that there is no such thing as "the end of all enquiry".

Now, some atheists will put an absurd faith in the big-bang theory, because they don't want to let the "God is in the gaps" argument any room - thus they'll reject the existence of gaps. But these people aren't the mainstream of atheism.

[Whaleboy]

Your view rests on a misunderstanding or a prejudice. Most atheists support the Scientific Method, and the scientific method clearly states that there is no such thing as "the end of all enquiry".

True, scientific knowledge is the antithesis to faith. That's why no-one will ever (one hopes) catch me saying that "I believe in the big bang" or "I believe in evolution", simply because belief is unnecessary and undermines scientific knowledge. At least, let's hope the search feature is sufficiently screwed that people can't find examples, if they can I clearly hadn't made the distinction in my own mind yet.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VJ
Most 'atheists' are just some sort of college frat boy pussies, looking for an excuse to **** around and live recklessly.

Bullcrap. In some parts of the world where atheism is/was institutionally suported, the huge majority of the people is atheist.

Mass religiosity (or lack thereof) is mostly related to the exposure to religion. In a society that makes religiosity the norm, most people will be religious. In a society that makes areligiosity the norm, most people will be atheists. It has nothing to do with being a college frat pussie.

[Ramo]

What I find laughable is the atheists faith in the Big Bang, the Universe, and stuff as being the end of all enquiry.

I'm curious how much inquiry have you put into " the Big Bang, the Universe, and stuff?" How many classes on general relativity and cosmology have you taken?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I think Flew forgot something basic.
That is, what created this super-intelligence?

I remember reading something written by a former atheist once. He said he saw no reason why, if you assume an original cause, you have to assume that the rules of all the effects apply to the cause as well.

Yes, I know, it defies the scientific method, but, y'know, who "created" the pinpoint of matter that exploded in the big bang? Can't you always ask, "and where did that come from?" in response to any supposedly definitive answer? Has anyone ever questioned string theory, "and what are the strings made of?"

Maybe the intelligence simply was, and if there were ever a time that it wasn't, that time is so far in the past as to be beyond our reckoning. We just don't like final answers if we try to think about them. Which is why I don't bother.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Elok


Yes, I know, it defies the scientific method, but, y'know, who "created" the pinpoint of matter that exploded in the big bang? Can't you always ask, "and where did that come from?" in response to any supposedly definitive answer? Has anyone ever questioned string theory, "and what are the strings made of?"

I'm not qualified to speak on string theory, but an honest atheist will answer most of your questions with "I don't know." Note that I don't know != God. It just means we don't know. 2500 years ago, nobody knew what lightning was or where it came from so the religious people of the time invented a god to explain it.

Maybe the intelligence simply was, and if there were ever a time that it wasn't, that time is so far in the past as to be beyond our reckoning. We just don't like final answers if we try to think about them. Which is why I don't bother.

I can skip a step and say the universe always was, or matter always was. Why the need for an intelligence that always was?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Gravitational theory predicts that under the extreme conditions that prevailed in the early universe, space and time may have been so distorted that there existed a boundary at which the distortion of space-time was infinite, and therefore through which space and time cannot have continued.

Ergo, no "time before" the singularity, as the singularity was the boundary of time.

Doesn't make the big bang a moment of creation.

Causation is not necessarily dependent on time, at least in the sense of space-time.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
This makes no sense. In order for what you're saying here to be true, there would have to some immutable laws outside of the singularity. This isn't the case, according to theory, as everything--the universe--was contained by the singularity.

Laws aren't material things. It's trivially true that the universe obeys immutable laws.

You seem to be arguing as if the singularity was floating in space. That's not what BB theory says--it says that space itself was a product of the BB.

The singularity was in space-time, but it encompassed space-time entirely.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Which requires lengths in the first place. Do you understand the meaning of the word "infinite" or "infinitesimal"?

It did have length. Zero.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo

What I find laughable is the atheists faith in the Big Bang, the Universe, and stuff as being the end of all enquiry.

I'm curious how much inquiry have you put into " the Big Bang, the Universe, and stuff?" How many classes on general relativity and cosmology have you taken?

how much inquiry have most athiests put into it

most atheists are just as much faith based as christians

JM

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
I remember reading something written by a former atheist once. He said he saw no reason why, if you assume an original cause, you have to assume that the rules of all the effects apply to the cause as well.

That's not how Flew arrived at the conclusion. He did not assume an original cause, he just got there by his own reasoning. Thus, there's no reason why such reasoning (complexity etc.) should not be applied one step up.

As for this other person you referred to, he was speaking nonsense, in a lot more words. He was clearly trying to sound knowledgable about something unknowable.

[Whaleboy]

It did have length. Zero.

Then by your two-dimensional reasoning, you deny the existence of singularities. A logical system predicated in a given condition (i.e. this universe) cannot be used to make predictions about conditions that are extrenuous to the original, for example, an external analysis of the universe at point time = 0. By definition therefore we have to consider it infinitesimal with infinite and infinitesimal surface area. I again reiterate the need for you to do your homework on the nature of infinity .

Causation is not necessarily dependent on time, at least in the sense of space-time.

Ummm, potential -> actuality?

The singularity was in space-time, but it encompassed space-time entirely.

So you would argue that it wasn't governed by time at all?

[Sava]

clearly this man's opinion wasn't worth anything to you fundies when he didn't believe in God, but now he changes his mind and he's suddenly gained all this credibility?

what kind of bull**** is that?

[Whaleboy]

Sava

[Elok]

I'm just saying there's ALWAYS another question to ask. You can always ask And Where Did That Come From? or What Is That Made Of? As long as you're skipping a step, skip the whole bloody process. When you're describing the basic nature of reality-a thing with absolutely no basis for comparison, no room to step back and examine from different angles, just due to its nature as a question-none of it "makes sense," because it's all resting on empty air from a human perspective. There will never be a final truth to this kind of question; it's not "I don't know," but "I can't know."

I was paraphrasing the former atheist from memory, and at any rate I don't think he was aiming for scientific proof so much as trying to explain his perspective. I'm not really trying to join the argument. I view evolution, the big bang, etc. as equally meaningless trivia from either a believing or a skeptical perspective.

At the risk of sounding homespun-smarmy, I'd like to say that you don't need to know squat about the Wright brothers to fly a plane. The only valid reason I can see for caring is if you're religious; that is, if you think the Wright brothers left behind an instruction manual. Even then, there's no reason to get all steamed up about it.