What is the strongest atheist argument?

[SnakeLord]

I will humor you. It is directly contradictory. If nothing exists then nothing can exist because out of nothing nothing comes.

Apparently you misunderstood why I asked. To clarify, you said: "The claim here is that at the very beginning (t=0) something already exists. In other words some material thing existed before anything existed. Patently impossible."

What I gather from that statement is that you consider it 'patently absurd' that something already existed at t=0. Why?

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.

What is it expanding into?

 

[Old man]

Apparently you misunderstood why I asked. To clarify, you said: "The claim here is that at the very beginning (t=0) something already exists. In other words some material thing existed before anything existed. Patently impossible."

What I gather from that statement is that you consider it 'patently absurd' that something already existed at t=0. Why?

No, I consider it absurd to assert that something existed before anything existed.

The man said: "The universe at t = 0 is nothing other than the particles’ temporal parts a and b and c. Each of these time-slices of the particles is caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, namely, by one of the time-slices or states of one of the other three particles. If the universe at t = 0 is a, b and c, and a, b and c are each caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe, it follows that the universe is caused to begin to exist, but not by anything external to the universe."

At t=0 there is no universe (according to him) except certain 'particles'. Yet he claims that the referenced particles are "caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe,...". That is convoluted and defective reasoning.

What is it expanding into?

I suppose you mean what kind of territory is it expanding into, not what will it become. There are all kinds of learned opinions about that. I do not think that anyone has anything other than speculation to base an opinion on. I certainly have no comment.

 

[SnakeLord]

At t=0 there is no universe (according to him) except certain 'particles'. Yet he claims that the referenced particles are "caused to begin to exist by something internal to the universe,...". That is convoluted and defective reasoning.

It actually isn't if you read and understand the entire thing. If you don't, that's quite alright - you're a contractor, not a cosmologist. At the very best you would be warranted to say "I don't know" and that would be that. Such inability to understand how something works or why it happens etc do not justify "god musta done it".

I suppose you mean what kind of territory is it expanding into, not what will it become.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

I do not think that anyone has anything other than speculation to base an opinion on.

I take it you don't subscribe to New Scientist.

I certainly have no comment.

Well, you've already exclaimed that nothing can come from nothing so you must also be of the view that something cannot expand in to nothing, (because there's nothing to expand in to). That is why I am asking you. In the one instance you accept that it happens and put your inability to answer it down to: "no comment" but in the other instance you deny it outright and conclude that god musta done it. There is a serious issue there.

 

[phlogistician]

Everything did come from nothing, but not by any of the suppositions offered here.

Offer up a clear, concise and testable supposition of your own please.

 

[Old man]

Offer up a clear, concise and testable supposition of your own please.

That's rich. Your side doesn't have one of those, but I'm supposed to?

 

[Old man]

It actually isn't if you read and understand the entire thing. If you don't, that's quite alright - you're a contractor, not a cosmologist. At the very best you would be warranted to say "I don't know" and that would be that. Such inability to understand how something works or why it happens etc do not justify "god musta done it".

I make no claim to be anything but what I am. But I am, however, well educated. I have re-read the section I mentioned several times, and his assertion seems clear.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

"Nothing" implies the absence of all things material or immaterial. It does not imply the absence of volume since that concept is neither.

I take it you don't subscribe to New Scientist.

No, but I read it from time to time and find it interesting. I have noticed though that great education does not preclude the issuing of outrageous suppositions. Even the most learned people have their own axes to grind, and having the sobriquet scientist or a string of letters after ones name does not mean that the speaker is not fallible even if some think they are not. At this point in life I am a general contractor, but that is by choice. By education I am a physiologist.

Well, you've already exclaimed that nothing can come from nothing so you must also be of the view that something cannot expand in to nothing, (because there's nothing to expand in to). That is why I am asking you. In the one instance you accept that it happens and put your inability to answer it down to: "no comment" but in the other instance you deny it outright and conclude that god musta done it. There is a serious issue there.

I see what you mean. On the other hand it might be that "nothing" is what was before creation, and at the point of creation nothingness ceased.

BTW, I appreciate your civil discussion. It is refreshing to have a conversation with someone with something to say.

 

[James R]

In post #65 I asserted that creation (accidental or otherwise) of everything from nothing is an impossibility.

What do you think your God created everything from, then?

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.

There are a number of possibilities you don't appear have considered. For example, to mention just three:

1. There was a (natural) cause of the big bang.
2. Some effects don't need causes (e.g. quantum fluctuations of the vacuum). Note that you need to actually show, or at least present a plausible argument, that this is nonsense, and not just expect us to take your pronouncement from on high as gospel.
3. If time began when the universe came into existence, it actually makes little sense to speak of a "cause" of time beginning, since the notion of cause and effect itself requires the passage of time.

Everything did come from nothing, but not by any of the suppositions offered here.

Ah! I love a mystery, and privileged knowledge known only to the select few.

Will you please enlighten us, or do you intend to keep us in suspense?

Or do you have nothing more to offer than "God did it (somehow)"?

I said up above that we actually know very little about the subatomic world compared to what there is to know...

Perhaps so, but it remains a fact that we do know an awful lot about the subatomic world. There's a good 100 years of knowledge accumulated about it, and that's only from the dawn of quantum physics.

Don't assume that because you personally have scant knowledge of the subatomic world that that knowledge is not available.

 

[phlogistician]

That's rich. Your side doesn't have one of those, but I'm supposed to?

Oh dear, you're in denial. Go and read about CERN and Fermilab, and see what research they are conducting right now. They are testing the hypotheses you deny exist!

 

[Old man]

Oh dear, you're in denial. Go and read about CERN and Fermilab, and see what research they are conducting right now. They are testing the hypotheses you deny exist!

Not at all. They are doing some very interesting research there, but what they are doing is not testing the origins of the universe. In order to do that they would have to recreate the specific conditions of the event. What they are doing is learning more and more about the sub atomic world. That's great because the more we know the better.

 

[Enmos]

"Nothing" implies the absence of all things material or immaterial. It does not imply the absence of volume since that concept is neither.

How do you define volume without anything material existing ?

 

[Old man]

How do you define volume without anything material existing ?

One of the definitions of volume is "a region of space". Nothing is said or implied as to contents.

 

[Enmos]

One of the definitions of volume is "a region of space". Nothing is said or implied as to contents.

But what does that mean without matter being in existence ?

 

[Blindman]

One of the definitions of volume is "a region of space". Nothing is said or implied as to contents.

The big bang created space/time so once again, as with time, the big bang created volume. A singularity has no volume, a line has no volume, and a plane has no volume. Stop thinking that your perception of the universe can be pushed to an imaginary time before. It does not work, it does not make senses, Deal with it.

 

[phlogistician]

Not at all. They are doing some very interesting research there, but what they are doing is not testing the origins of the universe. In order to do that they would have to recreate the specific conditions of the event. What they are doing is learning more and more about the sub atomic world. That's great because the more we know the better.

Higgs boson. Google it.

 

[Old man]

The big bang created space/time so once again, as with time, the big bang created volume. A singularity has no volume, a line has no volume, and a plane has no volume. Stop thinking that your perception of the universe can be pushed to an imaginary time before. It does not work, it does not make senses, Deal with it.

I get it. You have invested the big bang with the power to create everything out of nothing. You don't have a problem with the idea of creation as long as it is accomplished by an inanimate object that requires nothing of you. But let someone suggest that the creation was accomplished by God, who does require something of you, and you go ballistic.

You have chosen your screen name well.

 

[Old man]

Higgs boson. Google it.

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical particle predicted by theory. So? Theoretical predictions are often wrong. It looks to me like a magic cure.

 

[Ophiolite]

The big bang created space/time so once again, as with time, the big bang created volume.

Is your statement correct? It seems not to be. The Big Bang is the creation of space/time. The Big Bang is the creation of volume.
Thus the phrase 'Big Bang' is descriptive. That is appropriate. We can describe, through observation and theoretical calculation, what likely or at least plausibly happened during it.
Your usage incorporates an inference of how it came about and furnishes OldMan with a philosophical weakness in your argument. One that he has rightly seized on.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I'd rather that we would be looking for the answers to what created the universes rather than accept as a fact that some God created it just because a few of Earths citizens say that is what happened. Until all of the facts are in on exactly how the universe was created we should keep trying to learn what happened and how it happened if we can. By just accepting what others believe as what started it all isn't a factual way to convince skeptics about the origins of everything. Believing in the supernatural isn't a very good idea either to see the way things happened for that doesn't answer questions, it only begs for more questions.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

So, how does the big bang or multiple dimensions negate the possibility of God? Shouldn't all possibilities be considered? I thought science was trying to discover the answer to the question how, not who or why. Why can't God exist and science discover every little bit of his workings?

 

[Ophiolite]

So, how does the big bang or multiple dimensions negate the possibility of God?

It doesn't. They don't. The Big Bang negates any religion that claims, like some fundamentalist Christians do, that the Earth is only 6,000 year sold.But plenty of religion sit happily beside science. The problems lies with prejudiced religious nuts and dogmatic pseudo-scientists.

Shouldn't all possibilities be considered? ?

Eventually, but only in proportion to their seeming likelihood and - in the case of scientific consideration - when it is probable that scientific methodology will provide an answer.

I thought science was trying to discover the answer to the question how, not who or why.

Correct. And since this is the case your next sentence cannot apply.

I thought science was trying to discover the answer to the question how, not who or why. Why can't God exist and science discover every little bit of his workings?