Countdown till the end of the world.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#7650 Jun 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hard atheists know actual things - things that backed by evidence.
Theists on the other hand have absolutely NOTHING of merit to say or ANYTHING backed by evidence.
It's a shame that 100% of theists can't accept why they are wrong.
Um, no. It's quite the opposite, and always has been.

;)

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#7651 Jun 6, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
I guess it comes down to deliberately choosing to be dishonest to both themselves and the people they're supposed to care about.
Who is being deliberately dishonest? All the Christians of the past 2000 years? All the atheists that converted and died as martyrs, so convinced of Christ that they cared for nothing else and abandoned their wealthy and power?

We don't care about people? For 2000 years our charity has changed the world, and from our fruits the most advanced and scientific civilization on earth, making the existence of billions of people possible?

First, you have to prove the deliberate dishonesty. Second, you now need to defend your own dishonesty about history and how Christians have proven, time and time again, with ideas like human dignity and respect for women, that they care about people.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#7652 Jun 6, 2012
Prove that it had a beginning.*That* is a positive assertion. My assertion is that there is no evidence that it had a beginning. If you cannot make a case for the Universe's having had a beginning, then the only rational conclusion is that it did not necessarily have one. In other words, the option you left out.
<quoted text>
Really? Then demonstrate for us how any of those prove cyclic models of the Universe to be impossible.
We'll wait.
<quoted text>
What about it?(We don't know what took place prior to the Big Bang, but the Big Bang Theory does not claim that Universe didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.)
<quoted text>
What evidence is that?
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe,[1] and theoretical parallel universes.[2] According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly." - Wikipedia
You obviously are in way over your head. This is a discussion about the origin of the universe. There was nothing before the universe, that is the prevailing scientific theory. Yes, the Big Bang Theory DOES claim there was nothing before the universe.
The person here who is in way over his head is *you*, since *you* are the one who clearly doesn't understand the Big Bang theory. That theory makes no claim that there was "nothing" before the Universe.(From the Wikipedia article *you* yourself quoted, that theory takes us back only to an "extremely hot and dense state", and clearly does not take us back to "nothing.")

I suggest that you first attempt to understand the Big Bang theory before you attempt to engage in discussion of the origin (if any) of the Universe. Otherwise you merely embarrass yourself.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#7653 Jun 6, 2012
Then who here said "Science provides all the evidence we need to conclude that it was created."?
Wasn't that *you*?
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Right, the scientific community made the assertion, with the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang theory says only that the Universe expanded from an extremely hot, dense state. It does not claim that the Universe was "created" (and certainly science makes no claim that the Universe was "created" in the sense that some intelligence did so).

So I ask you again, how does science provides any evidence that allows us to conclude that the Universe was "created"?

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#7654 Jun 6, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Prove that it had a beginning.*That* is a positive assertion. My assertion is that there is no evidence that it had a beginning. If you cannot make a case for the Universe's having had a beginning, then the only rational conclusion is that it did not necessarily have one. In other words, the option you left out.
<quoted text>
Really? Then demonstrate for us how any of those prove cyclic models of the Universe to be impossible.
We'll wait.
<quoted text>
What about it?(We don't know what took place prior to the Big Bang, but the Big Bang Theory does not claim that Universe didn't exist prior to the Big Bang.)
<quoted text>
What evidence is that?
<quoted text>
The person here who is in way over his head is *you*, since *you* are the one who clearly doesn't understand the Big Bang theory. That theory makes no claim that there was "nothing" before the Universe.(From the Wikipedia article *you* yourself quoted, that theory takes us back only to an "extremely hot and dense state", and clearly does not take us back to "nothing.")
I suggest that you first attempt to understand the Big Bang theory before you attempt to engage in discussion of the origin (if any) of the Universe. Otherwise you merely embarrass yourself.
The Big Bang theory IS the positive assertion, which I do not make. Yes, it DOES assert that it was the beginning point, the dense and hot state was the beginning point. Nor does it explain every possible thing or event, or the moment the universe actually came into existence. No, you are in over your head, AGAIN. The hot and dense state before the "bang" is PART of the whole whole origin process. In fact, there was no "bang", that is just a word atheists, when they denied the theory to begin with 100 years ago, used, and it's stuck.

And again, I need assert nothing. You are either asserting that the universe always existed, or not. If not, then you lose the argument, the Big Bang theory is already overwhelming evidence against you. If you believe it always existed, that is a positive claim for which there is ZERO evidence.

The cyclic model was debunked long ago in academia (I do work at a university.) They have been looking for a way for the universe to collapse again, in the hopes of finding that very important to the atheist view-point cyclic model. It has never been possible. There is no known force that can bring back in an expanding universe. The laws of physics make it impossible, unless there is something not found yet that will change, universe-wide, all at once to shift the balance.

In over my head, what a joke. I've been into this sort of thing since I was a teenager. I knew about original theories long before they ever got published. I knew there had to be black holes at the center of galaxies long before it was confirmed. I knew that there had to be empty space, a sort of bubble, around that black hole before they figured it out. This isn't that hard to comprehend for me, I should have been physicist. But oh well, I'll content myself making fools of those that think they know science. In my experience, most people by FAR don't know what they are talking about.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#7655 Jun 6, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Then who here said "Science provides all the evidence we need to conclude that it was created."?
Wasn't that *you*?
<quoted text>
The Big Bang theory says only that the Universe expanded from an extremely hot, dense state. It does not claim that the Universe was "created" (and certainly science makes no claim that the Universe was "created" in the sense that some intelligence did so).
So I ask you again, how does science provides any evidence that allows us to conclude that the Universe was "created"?
Oh yeah, this makes sense. So despite all the evidence that there is a beginning and evolving state in the universe, that just isn't enough to conclude that it was created, until we have some evidence to the contrary?

Enough of this. There is no Everlasting Universe Theory. Show some evidence that it could exist forever, or this is over.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#7657 Jun 6, 2012
The person here who is in way over his head is *you*, since *you* are the one who clearly doesn't understand the Big Bang theory. That theory makes no claim that there was "nothing" before the Universe.(From the Wikipedia article *you* yourself quoted, that theory takes us back only to an "extremely hot and dense state", and clearly does not take us back to "nothing.")
I suggest that you first attempt to understand the Big Bang theory before you attempt to engage in discussion of the origin (if any) of the Universe. Otherwise you merely embarrass yourself.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The Big Bang theory IS the positive assertion, which I do not make.
You obviously don't even *understand* the Big Bang theory, so it doesn't matter whether it's your assertion or not.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Yes, it DOES assert that it was the beginning point, the dense and hot state was the beginning point.
No, the Big Bang theory asserts that the Universe can be traced back to a dense and hot state. It makes no assertion what, if anything, preceded that state.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Nor does it explain every possible thing or event, or the moment the universe actually came into existence.
Nobody here has claimed that it does, so your statement is irrelevant.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
No, you are in over your head, AGAIN.
I'm not the one here misrepresenting what the Big Bang theory says. That misrepresentation is coming from *you*.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The hot and dense state before the "bang" is PART of the whole whole origin process.
Indeed, but the Big Bang theory makes no claim that the hot and dense state was preceded by "nothing".
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
In fact, there was no "bang", that is just a word atheists, when they denied the theory to begin with 100 years ago, used, and it's stuck.
No, it's a word that *Fred Hoyle* used. Hoyle never was elected to speak on behalf of atheists.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
And again, I need assert nothing.
Yet you keep making false assertions about the Big Bang theory.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
You are either asserting that the universe always existed, or not.
No, I am asserting that one cannot *rule out* the idea that the Universe has always existed. You certainly have provided no evidence to rule it out.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
If not, then you lose the argument, the Big Bang theory is already overwhelming evidence against you.
No, it isn't.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The cyclic model was debunked long ago in academia (I do work at a university.)
Then you should be able to identify the specific peer-reviewed cosmological paper that successfully debunked it. Identify that paper.

Lots of people work for universities. Janitors, for instance. Food service people. Landscapers. Funny how you won't say what you do at a university.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
In over my head, what a joke.
You've already demonstrated that you're in over your head by misrepresenting what the Big Bang theory says.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
I should have been physicist.
If you can't even understand what the Big Bang theory says, then it's a good thing you didn't attempt to go in that direction.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#7658 Jun 6, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
So despite all the evidence that there is a beginning and evolving state in the universe
No, there is evidence that the Universe was once in a hot, dense state. There is no evidence as to what the Universe was prior to that.

Do you have any? No, I didn't think so.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#7659 Jun 6, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah, this makes sense. So despite all the evidence that there is a beginning and evolving state in the universe, that just isn't enough to conclude that it was created, until we have some evidence to the contrary?
Enough of this. There is no Everlasting Universe Theory. Show some evidence that it could exist forever, or this is over.
It was our Universe, just happened to be in a "hot dense state". It existed, it was all there. How could it be otherwise?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#7660 Jun 9, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe,[1] and theoretical parallel universes.[2] According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly." - Wikipedia
You obviously are in way over your head. This is a discussion about the origin of the universe. There was nothing before the universe, that is the prevailing scientific theory. Yes, the Big Bang Theory DOES claim there was nothing before the universe.
Your biggest mistake-- and you make many-- is that you can only "think" (if you want to call what you do "thinking") in absolute, black-or-white terms.

You equate the term "nothing" (as used by the theorists) as absolute-- a classic mistake.

But this is not surprising: you have zero experience outside your little black-or-white myth-culture of hate (Genuine Christianity™).

What was meant by the theorists of the Big Bang, was "nothing as we know it now".

Whatever the universe was prior to the Big Bang cannot be known, so long as we are confined to the present universe or it's conditions.

This is because information cannot survive the initial conditions of the Big Bang itself-- so knowing (information) cannot pass that barrier.

The Universe could have existed prior to the Big Bang initial event, only in some other form.

Unless you can travel outside the current universe, there is simply no way of knowing.

You are so very tiny-minded in your desperate and pathetic attempt to "disprove" what you are utterly clueless with regards, you limit your tiny little black-or-white brain (if you want to call what you keep in your skull a "brain"-- overly generous, really).

Sad.

“ALONUSAHI ANANAEL”

Since: Oct 09

ST George UT

#7661 Jun 10, 2012
Nothing but a bunch of pseudo intellectuals here...

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#7662 Jun 10, 2012
Gramen Ferox wrote:
Nothing but a bunch of pseudo intellectuals here...
Takes one to know one!

“ALONUSAHI ANANAEL”

Since: Oct 09

ST George UT

#7663 Jun 11, 2012
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Takes one to know one!
Right,“Blue Collar Philosopher".

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#7664 Jun 11, 2012
Gramen Ferox wrote:
<quoted text>
Right,“Blue Collar Philosopher".
Hey, is that the new Jeff Foxworthy thing ...

"you might be a blue collar philosopher if ... you call people who disagree with you pseudo intellectuals."

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#7665 Jun 12, 2012
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
It was our Universe, just happened to be in a "hot dense state". It existed, it was all there. How could it be otherwise?
How could what be otherwise?

It just happened to be ...?

LOL!

Thus, how did it all begin. Either it was created, or it is an accident. Being that the universe clearly started off as something very small and hot and dense, and then exploded into something that won't be coming back together into that same state, that makes the evidence pretty obvious.

If your notion of science is that ... it just happened to be ... you're in big trouble in the academic world, my friend.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#7666 Jun 12, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Your biggest mistake-- and you make many-- is that you can only "think" (if you want to call what you do "thinking") in absolute, black-or-white terms.
You equate the term "nothing" (as used by the theorists) as absolute-- a classic mistake.
But this is not surprising: you have zero experience outside your little black-or-white myth-culture of hate (Genuine Christianity™).
What was meant by the theorists of the Big Bang, was "nothing as we know it now".
Whatever the universe was prior to the Big Bang cannot be known, so long as we are confined to the present universe or it's conditions.
This is because information cannot survive the initial conditions of the Big Bang itself-- so knowing (information) cannot pass that barrier.
The Universe could have existed prior to the Big Bang initial event, only in some other form.
Unless you can travel outside the current universe, there is simply no way of knowing.
You are so very tiny-minded in your desperate and pathetic attempt to "disprove" what you are utterly clueless with regards, you limit your tiny little black-or-white brain (if you want to call what you keep in your skull a "brain"-- overly generous, really).
Sad.
"The Universe could have existed prior to the Big Bang initial event, only in some other form."

Dude, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Could have existed ... that is not science. There is no evidence to support anything existed prior to the Big Bang (and I INCLUDE the dense hot mass prior to that point.) It was NOT an actual big bang, it was a gradual process from nothing to something.

And you haven't even touched on when time and space began, and the laws of physics themselves, or their origins.

Information cannot survive the Big Bang? Well then, that makes you assertion one of faith that anything existed at all. There is zero scientific evidence for anything before it, period. Oh, but how convenient for you, that no evidence could have survived, right?

LOL!

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#7667 Jun 12, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
The person here who is in way over his head is *you*, since *you* are the one who clearly doesn't understand the Big Bang theory. That theory makes no claim that there was "nothing" before the Universe.(From the Wikipedia article *you* yourself quoted, that theory takes us back only to an "extremely hot and dense state", and clearly does not take us back to "nothing.")
I suggest that you first attempt to understand the Big Bang theory before you attempt to engage in discussion of the origin (if any) of the Universe. Otherwise you merely embarrass yourself.
<quoted text>
You obviously don't even *understand* the Big Bang theory, so it doesn't matter whether it's your assertion or not.
<quoted text>
No, the Big Bang theory asserts that the Universe can be traced back to a dense and hot state. It makes no assertion what, if anything, preceded that state.
<quoted text>
Nobody here has claimed that it does, so your statement is irrelevant.
<quoted text>
I'm not the one here misrepresenting what the Big Bang theory says. That misrepresentation is coming from *you*.
<quoted text>
Indeed, but the Big Bang theory makes no claim that the hot and dense state was preceded by "nothing".
<quoted text>
No, it's a word that *Fred Hoyle* used. Hoyle never was elected to speak on behalf of atheists.
<quoted text>
Yet you keep making false assertions about the Big Bang theory.
<quoted text>
No, I am asserting that one cannot *rule out* the idea that the Universe has always existed. You certainly have provided no evidence to rule it out.
<quoted text>
No, it isn't.
<quoted text>
Then you should be able to identify the specific peer-reviewed cosmological paper that successfully debunked it. Identify that paper.
Lots of people work for universities. Janitors, for instance. Food service people. Landscapers. Funny how you won't say what you do at a university.
<quoted text>
You've already demonstrated that you're in over your head by misrepresenting what the Big Bang theory says.
<quoted text>
If you can't even understand what the Big Bang theory says, then it's a good thing you didn't attempt to go in that direction.
Drew?

Why are you being dishonest?

I know exactly what the Big Bang theory is, and I've made that clear. And I know it supports a point of origin of the universe, it does NOT support a cyclic hypothesis or eternal universe. It does not support the existence of anything ... including space and time and the laws of physics, before the moment of origin.

Thus, there is no Eternal Universe Theory, no other theory, but the Big Bang, that holds any water.

And you sit here and pretend to know what you're talking about.

So, once again, got any evidence that the universe is an accident or eternal?

Quick now, go look up Hawkins multiverse ideas and other wild and crazies possibilities, none of which have graduated to actual hard science.

What you have is speculation.

And you know how I know that you are in way over your head? You haven't even touched on the origin of space and time and the laws of physics themselves.

I guess those just happened, too, right? Good day, Drew.
The Heathen

United States

#7668 Jun 12, 2012
Did I miss the "special day"?
Are there any snacks left?
How many "end of the world parties" are we going to have, waiting for their sky-daddy to get off his all-powerful ass and do something?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#7669 Jun 12, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
How could what be otherwise?
It just happened to be ...?
LOL!
Thus, how did it all begin. Either it was created, or it is an accident. Being that the universe clearly started off as something very small and hot and dense, and then exploded into something that won't be coming back together into that same state, that makes the evidence pretty obvious.
If your notion of science is that ... it just happened to be ... you're in big trouble in the academic world, my friend.
when you folks who are sure of your own answers stop making fools of yourselves claiming to know what you don't know - let us know. meanwhile, the claimtoknow types can fight it out and continue to show us they have nothing they can make a case for. on any side of that argument.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#7670 Jun 12, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Education also plays a role here too.
The more educated a person is? Or, the more exposure to different and widely-varying cultures a person experiences?
The higher the likelihood of them becoming (or being) a non-theist.
Nothing makes atheists faster than a historically accurate, comparative religious course.
I think it might be interesting to find out what does make people who were raised with religious views turn atheist. Is it rational thought? or is it turning against a repressive life-style? I think several of the atheists in here became atheists, despite religious backgrounds, or perhaps because of them.(instead of being lucky like I was and free from religion from the start - with agnostic parents who did not believe in the Biblical God, at least - did not consider others except as Greek myths).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns (Sep '14) 1 hr Reason Personified 340
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr thetruth 3,821
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr thetruth 18,451
News Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news - a t... 3 hr thetruth 55
News Athiest tells high schoolers God is evil (May '11) 3 hr thetruth 793
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 3 hr thetruth 9,358
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 3 hr thetruth 81
A Universe from Nothing? 3 hr thetruth 419
News Why I quit atheism 4 hr Thinking 679
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Chimney1 43,083
More from around the web