Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How is it evidence? Have you compared it with other universes?

What other universes did you have in mind? The DC or Marvel universe?

So what are the properties of God that would lead you to consider the universe evidence?

The property of creation of the universe.

 

[Third Party]

Actually it is relevant. You are trying to pawn yourself off as an expert in logic.

False. One does not have to be an expert in logic to know the answer to the question, or to look it up. This was literally week 2 material in discrete mathematics.

You're still in school, aren't you?

Me ? not for a while...

 

[Third Party]

Ad hominem, ad hominem! This is about saying God exists-I believe that-so am I lying to myself? Or shifting goalposts-or guideposts? Theism is as mad as atheism because they are two sides of the same coin-belief in something that can't be proved. Just let people believe the way they want.

Nonsense! I just got through proving God's existence. Here, I'll do it again:

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.
2. Existence from nonexistence is impossible.
3. Hence, something has always existed.
4. Hence, not all things that exist began to exist.
5. Hence, not all things that exist were created.
6. The material world is a divisible, mutable and contingent entity of causality.
7. An actual infinite is impossible.
8. An infinite regress of causality is impossible.
9. Hence, the material world began to exist.
10. The material world is not the eternal ground of existence.
11. The universally objective idea of God is that of the transcendent, eternally self-subsistence being of unparallelled greatness who created everything else that exists.
12. God necessarily exists.

What I can't do is stop folks from lying to themselves . . . folks like you.

So there are two of you! Anyway, nothing has been proven, everything exists as it was. And, RELAX!

 

[Hollie]

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.

Hearing voices?

The gods have spoken to me and advised they have never spoken to you. They're now concerned about your false attributions.

 

[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 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.

 

[Third Party]

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.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Identify some element of the universe that requires intervention by the gods.

Identify those gods. You know, the gods you claim communicate with you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Neither.

...no.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes.

Sorry, you have to choose one.

No correct answers, yet....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for god's existence

False, since it can be explained without any need for magical gods.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ringtone



Third Party

JimBowie1958



G.T.

hobelim

Is the following statement true, or is it false?

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

 

[ding]

The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for god's existence

False, since it can be explained without any need for magical gods.

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Ringtone]

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 possible 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.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

 

[ding]

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.​

Exactly.

The universe may have been created from nothing but it didn’t come from nothing. It came from no thing. Spirit is no thing. The laws of nature are no thing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

universe may have been created from nothing but it didn’t come from nothing. It came from no thing. Spirit is no thing.

Shaman ding has spoken!

 

[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.

The creation of the universe followed the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. They literally have an elegant formula based on those laws.

 

[ding]

universe may have been created from nothing but it didn’t come from nothing. It came from no thing. Spirit is no thing.

Shaman ding has spoken!

And it offends your militant atheist sensibilities.