One last question for you: Are you going out of your way to miss the point?
What is the strongest atheist argument?
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
One last question for you: Are you going out of your way to miss the point?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Everything had to come from nothing, or we wouldn't be here. Time is important here, because time was also created at the big bang, space-time was created. Without matter and energy to interact, there was no cause and effect, and therefore time was meaningless before the big bang. No events to separate, no measure of time.
It also rather depends on what you think surrounds us, ... something, or ripples in nothing. As matter and energy are linked, and energy is an oscillation, of positive and negative parts, you could make the analogy that the big bang was nothing more than a ripple, and the complexity of that ripple is what we percieve as matter.
Why did the ripple start? You have to throw a rock in a pond to start one, so what kicked the big bang off? Why did anything have to, ... before the big bang, there were no laws of physics, and laws aren't laws, just description of how matter and energy interact. No matter and energy, no laws, ... anything can happen, and it looks like it did. All that has to happen, is a ripple that does not annihilate itself. There could have been billions of 'big blips' that never got to expand, and kept cancelling themselves out, before the 'big bang' managed to create some anisotropy, and bingo, we have something that will last for a while.
In post #65 I asserted that creation (accidental or otherwise) of everything from nothing is an impossibility. Since then I have been directed to a philosophical paper that put forth the idea, in several forms, that indeed something can come from nothing. The problem is that in each of the examples given it is postulated that there is already something from which everything came. The writer uses words like "suppose", "if", "possibly" and so forth. It is mere conjecture, interesting to read for insight into the wonderful world of pseudo scientific "thinking". The writer, and most of my respondents, accept the idea of an uncaused effect that the writer espouses at the same time he cites a cause. It is nonsense.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I believe the universe, in some form or another, always was.
Everything did come from nothing, but not by any of the suppositions offered here. I think these suppositions are clung to because the alternative is just not acceptable even as a hypothesis?
This is irrelevant. Your claim is still for creation ex nihilo.
All this does is back the problem up further into the past. It doesn't answer the question of how anything got here in the first place. It appears that everyone here assumes that creation ex nihilo is not only possible, but actually happened, and that the axiom ex nihilo nihil fit is somehow mistaken, and that uncaused effects are responsible for creation as we (very partially) know it.
I said up above that we actually know very little about the subatomic world compared to what there is to know, yet from that scant knowledge cathedrals of supposition have been erected that are then claimed to hold the answer to what is arguably one of the most important questions there is: how did the universe begin?
Many people believe that.
Did norsefire drop by and mention he's a christian now?
The single strongest Atheist argument is not one we'll see here. MOST atheists,those not on this board, are indifferent to a deity and would not seek to discuss religion with theists. I have a friend who is an atheist who stated in response to my question of why atheism,"Fuck this religious bullshit, have a beer.". Can't argue with that.
The single strongest Atheist argument is not one we'll see here. MOST atheists,those not on this board, are indifferent to a deity and would not seek to discuss religion with theists. I have a friend who is an atheist who stated in response to my question of why atheism,"Fuck this religious bullshit, have a beer.". Can't argue with that.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Then I am one of many. I forget.. was originality required ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yes, but on this forum an atheist is confronted daily with blatant lies about atheism itself and those who can be identified as atheists.
Those "discussions" really irritate me, but I often can't help myself..
Enmos-Fuck that then. Beer?
Because...?
The issue here is that of 'nothing'. Given your sentiments regarding it, you must invariably be under the belief that the universe isn't espanding. If you state that it is expanding, I need to ask why you would accept one and deny the other.
imo no one knows,
WHY is it so important btw??
those who claim god did it are full of shyt,after all why would PERFECT being have a NEED to create anything??
like I said already,,something from nothing is illogical,
so WTF you religious bible junkys keep sounding like a broken record??
for something to EXPLODE there must have been SOMETHING already EXISTING,
perhaps MATTER in different shape form maybe??
to claim god needed to DO anything doesnt follow,not if there are enough Forces within the Universe to make everything move the way it does,
what forces,
UNKNOWN at this point in time...
if it was god WHAT CREATED IT???
I take it you have no adequate responses to my questions.
atheists don't necessarily worship/agree with science. your argument is that cos we don't have an explanation, and you've made one up, theists>atheists. i understand the logic of 'well the first cause must have been magic', but that doesn't mean anything you ascribe to that entity is correct.
Like I said. Poo. Refer to post 108.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Old Man said:
I will humor you. It is directly contradictory. If nothing exists then nothing can exist because out of nothing nothing comes.
I do in fact believe that the material universe is expanding. There is lots of evidence for it, and no reason I can think of to deny it. Please clarify which position you want me to comment on.
Last edited: