News1 min ago
Searching For Atheist Apologists.
130 Answers
I have searched in vain for atheist apologists who can present plausible theories of the origin of the universe.
So far, the ones I have found all presuppose a, "something," as a part of their definition of nothing.
Lawrence Krausse requires laws to make, "nothing," unstable.
Hawking required gravity.
An unnamed YouTube lecturer required that time was past eternal.
Can you direct me to any more?
So far, the ones I have found all presuppose a, "something," as a part of their definition of nothing.
Lawrence Krausse requires laws to make, "nothing," unstable.
Hawking required gravity.
An unnamed YouTube lecturer required that time was past eternal.
Can you direct me to any more?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mmm, thought so:
https:/
https:/
//Searching For Atheist Apologists//
Because a belief in a god who created an unimaginably large universe (who needed to 'rest' after 6 days of graft) and who created a being out of soil and then created a mate for said being out of a rib and placed them both in an enchanted garden that had a magical talking snake who enticed them both into eating a magical piece of fruit that would cause all sorts of disaster for future generations that wasn't their fault?
Yes, I too searched for another way rather than believe such sh**
Because a belief in a god who created an unimaginably large universe (who needed to 'rest' after 6 days of graft) and who created a being out of soil and then created a mate for said being out of a rib and placed them both in an enchanted garden that had a magical talking snake who enticed them both into eating a magical piece of fruit that would cause all sorts of disaster for future generations that wasn't their fault?
Yes, I too searched for another way rather than believe such sh**
The issue here really is what you mean by 'plausible'
What is worked out in mathematics to very fine levels of detail, complete with predictions that accurately match the observable universe and reviewed by the world's scientific community, is – by you – dismissed as implausible. Even though you demonstrably don't understand the science.
Instead you offer us an imaginary being who 'caused' the universe. You offer no evidence for that, except a book put together by multiple authors over 2000 years ago, which – you claim – offers a better explanation.
You are entitled to that view; just as you are entitled to claim that the moon is made of green cheese.
Your questions pertaining to the nature of nothing show that you simply don't understand quantum fluctuations.
A particle and its anti-particle amount to nothing. Literally, nothing. In this sense 'nothing' can spontaneously give rise to a particle and its anti-particle.
This is the quantum foam that you so easily dismiss as implausible, despite the fact that much greater minds than mine or yours have demonstrated that not only is this possible, but it frequently happens in 'real life', and have worked out detailed explanations of how and under what conditions it can happen.
There really is no point in seeking to educate you in this area, because you choose to dismiss the mathematics, research and calculations that demonstrate the validity of the scientific model.
That model successfully predicts all kinds of observable evidence. It is testable by those who have the tools to test it. Those tests have shown that the model is succesful.
Your model (God) does no such thing. You assert that God pre-existed the universe and is the first cause of the universe. You present no evidence (except Biblical stories) ; you make no predictions based on that theory and you fail to show how your theory might be tested or falsified.
Theland, this is not an argument you can win, when we stick to the rules of science and logic. Science is based on observable evidence.
Your beliefs are based on faith. A deliberate jump into the unknown and unknowable.
The two are not incompatible, except when you start to assert that your faith brings better insights than science into observable facts.
Science can deal in facts, theories, evidence and mathematics.
Faith can deal in mystery and mysticsm; allegories and belief. There are insights in that.
But faith won't bring insights into star formation; gravity; dark matter; quantum mechanics or relativity.
When you use the language of faith to discuss those things, you make yourself look silly, which is why you get negative comments on here when you try to do that.
Keep your faith; love your God; but if you try to explain cosmology using faith alone, you will continue to attract mockery; bth on this site and elsewhere.
What is worked out in mathematics to very fine levels of detail, complete with predictions that accurately match the observable universe and reviewed by the world's scientific community, is – by you – dismissed as implausible. Even though you demonstrably don't understand the science.
Instead you offer us an imaginary being who 'caused' the universe. You offer no evidence for that, except a book put together by multiple authors over 2000 years ago, which – you claim – offers a better explanation.
You are entitled to that view; just as you are entitled to claim that the moon is made of green cheese.
Your questions pertaining to the nature of nothing show that you simply don't understand quantum fluctuations.
A particle and its anti-particle amount to nothing. Literally, nothing. In this sense 'nothing' can spontaneously give rise to a particle and its anti-particle.
This is the quantum foam that you so easily dismiss as implausible, despite the fact that much greater minds than mine or yours have demonstrated that not only is this possible, but it frequently happens in 'real life', and have worked out detailed explanations of how and under what conditions it can happen.
There really is no point in seeking to educate you in this area, because you choose to dismiss the mathematics, research and calculations that demonstrate the validity of the scientific model.
That model successfully predicts all kinds of observable evidence. It is testable by those who have the tools to test it. Those tests have shown that the model is succesful.
Your model (God) does no such thing. You assert that God pre-existed the universe and is the first cause of the universe. You present no evidence (except Biblical stories) ; you make no predictions based on that theory and you fail to show how your theory might be tested or falsified.
Theland, this is not an argument you can win, when we stick to the rules of science and logic. Science is based on observable evidence.
Your beliefs are based on faith. A deliberate jump into the unknown and unknowable.
The two are not incompatible, except when you start to assert that your faith brings better insights than science into observable facts.
Science can deal in facts, theories, evidence and mathematics.
Faith can deal in mystery and mysticsm; allegories and belief. There are insights in that.
But faith won't bring insights into star formation; gravity; dark matter; quantum mechanics or relativity.
When you use the language of faith to discuss those things, you make yourself look silly, which is why you get negative comments on here when you try to do that.
Keep your faith; love your God; but if you try to explain cosmology using faith alone, you will continue to attract mockery; bth on this site and elsewhere.
What Nailit said...... Why on earth do you keep banging on about this? I am happy to accept that there are people that believe in some form of deity...even tho' they are wrong IMO Why on earth can''t you show the same respect to those who do not believe in any deity? This is where you are rude and offensive.
"Atheist apologists," is not an aggressive and insulting description. Many Christians call themselves apologists, so that's just to clear that up.
My thread is a search for genuine information.
Rationalist - Like Krusse, you infer that nothing can be subjected to the laws of quantum mechanics.
Fine, so that implies that such laws are fundamental and eternal. Interesting. I want to know more.
Nailit - I did not mention my beliefs, or the Bible, the question is purely a scientific enquiry, so what prompted you to take off on a tangent and criticise me for something I don't believe in, and never mentioned?
You have really lost me there.
And comments that attempt to belittle my genuine enquiry are just not worthy of serious consideration, as I think they are no more than entertainment for the poster.
Oh by the way, surely my question is legitimate on the R & S category? That is also a question I would like answered.
My thread is a search for genuine information.
Rationalist - Like Krusse, you infer that nothing can be subjected to the laws of quantum mechanics.
Fine, so that implies that such laws are fundamental and eternal. Interesting. I want to know more.
Nailit - I did not mention my beliefs, or the Bible, the question is purely a scientific enquiry, so what prompted you to take off on a tangent and criticise me for something I don't believe in, and never mentioned?
You have really lost me there.
And comments that attempt to belittle my genuine enquiry are just not worthy of serious consideration, as I think they are no more than entertainment for the poster.
Oh by the way, surely my question is legitimate on the R & S category? That is also a question I would like answered.
//My thread is a search for genuine information//
Like hell it is Theland,
//Nailit - I did not mention my beliefs//
You don't have too do you? They are well known.
//so what prompted you to take off on a tangent and criticise me for something I don't believe in//
So you don't believe in the Genesis account then?
Do you believe in talking snakes or not? Simple question. Do you believe in Genesis chapters 1&2?
Like hell it is Theland,
//Nailit - I did not mention my beliefs//
You don't have too do you? They are well known.
//so what prompted you to take off on a tangent and criticise me for something I don't believe in//
So you don't believe in the Genesis account then?
Do you believe in talking snakes or not? Simple question. Do you believe in Genesis chapters 1&2?
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
News2 mins ago
The Post Office Horizon Enquiry
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.