Does everything have a start?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Look a virtual particle manifest at planck level; there is no way they could cause something like the big bang. Its just too large. Macro phenomena have macro causes.
A virtual particle, with a lifespan of 1 Planck time, has the Plank energy as its upper limit; that is ~10^9 Joules. That's equivalent to the energy released by the explosion of 1/2 a metric ton of TNT.
Thats tiny compared to the big bang
Well the mass of an inflaton is typically bounded to less than 10^-9 Joules. So you are off by ~18 orders of magnitude.
Look you are dreaming, virtual particles could not create time; its a dimension!
"Look you are dreaming, virtual particles could not create time; its a dimension!"
Yes we now, you're claiming it requires an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic. Do you know what an argument from incredulity is?
"Arguments from incredulity happen when people make their inability to comprehend or make sense of a concept in their argument."
I never said they did.
"The big bang is very finely balanced with gravity; if the expansion rate of space is just enough to stop everything collapsing under gravity. It looks fine tuned. And the rest of the universe looks fine tuned too."
But this universe is not in any balance, it is expanding. This is where dark matter is considered, and no, it is not mentioned in your holy book.
1. Yes widely accepted axiom as it pertains to the known universe and everything that happened after the big bang. Before the big bang is an open unanswered question, your guess is as good as anyone else's. All possible observation with current tech comes to an end at what happened before the big bang. The mistake is made that rules like: "something cannot come from nothing" that pertains to the the current known universe no longer apply. We have no idea if there was always something or if the universe is infinite or not. And I think it is quite likely as a human race we will never know.
2. Only follows logically from 1, within the framework of the claim of 1 (the known universe after the big bang.)
3. Wait.. did you just say: "assume infinity exist as a quantity then go and disprove the assumption you asked us to take?
4. Why is it not possible for something to create itself? I think what you are really trying to say, is something cannot come from nothing. Problem here is: we do not know if there was "nothing" before the big bang. Many religious apologist say that "god created everything" (so there was always something, and never nothing.) Really quite the dishonest little insert there, creating an argument with no possible evidence either way, then immediately breaking the rule the: "evidence free argument" made to insert the person's god idea.
5. Why is that? What is intelligence how do you define it? And again an argument made with zero real world evidence trying to lead credence to a fantastically large claim that itself has a huge lack of real evidence for it, when there is tons of evidence going the other way, that: god is a human created idea.
Sure you can dismiss quantum fluctuations, but without any evidence to support your claim, you claim is meaningless and comes off as a vain child like attempt to prove one's god fantasy.
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
1. My whole argument pertains to what happened before the big bang. Rules like 'something cannot come from nothing' are not specific to this universe; they are specific to common sense.
3. Infinity is not a quantity: There is no quantity oo such that oo > all other quantities because oo + 1 > oo.
4. Something creating itself is contrary to common sense. We don know there was always something before the big bang: if there was nothing to start with; nothing follows.
5. How do you create a dimension? Requires intelligence.
Quantum fluctuations can't create anything; they are too low energy.
That isn't correct; but at least this math mistake of your is much more subtle than the others.
Christ, 6 pages of this vapid nonsense, and now SFT is joining in.
1. Argumentum ad populum fallacy, and you have yet to evidence the claim. You don't even seem to grasp that disbelieving a claim, is not the same as making a contrary claim.
2. Anyone who doesn't grasp the burden of proof and uses argumentum ad ignorantiam doesn't have even a basic grasp of what is rational.
3. More vapid word games.
4. Must have, not must of (sic). I see another claim based on argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy right after you claim to be rational. Anything that contains a logical fallacy by definition cannot be asserted as rational.
5. Another unevidenced claim, ho humm.
Six pages, and all you're doing is repeating the unevidenced claims you made right at the start.
1. The opposite claim, 'something from nothing' is magical as you need to provide evidence for it
(the rest of your post is handwaving)
As I said, you don't even seem to grasp that disbelieving a claim, is not the same as making a contrary claim. I'll dumb it down for you, I have not claimed something can come from nothing, so no I don't have to prove this claim. I have asked you to evidence your claim that something cannot come from nothing, you can't do this of course, and it is your obfuscation that is hand waving, so that's an hilarious accusation from you.
Now evidence your claim that something can't come from nothing?
You're using an argument from ignorance fallacy, it's so common from apologists it's a cliche.
Its a common sense argument: Nothing is defined as no matter/energy or dimensions. Then (barring magic) nothing can come from it. So we've established that 'nothing comes from nothing' which implies 'something can't come from nothing'.
What is wrong with the above argument exactly?
You've just repeated your claim, I see no evidence. Calling it common sense is meaningless, and pretty rich considering you're the one making unevidenced claim for supernatural magic as the cause.
It's irrational as it contains obvious informal fallacies, inconsistent as it contradicts itself and uses special pleading fallacies, it includes unevidenced claims for supernatural causation that have no explanatory powers whatsoever.
" So we've established that 'nothing comes from nothing' which implies 'something can't come from nothing'.
What is wrong with the above argument exactly?"
You've established nothing, merely repeated your claim, it's not an argument either, you're simply asserting something without any evidence. One more time then, what evidence can you demonstrate that something can't come from nothing? So far all you've offered is repetition of bare assertions, and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to try and reverse the burden of proof.
..."Then (barring magic) nothing can come from it."
HOW does your deistic God poof the (our) Universe into existence? What is its method? what are its building blocks? If you can't answer this, i'm sorry to say to you that you're advocating magic.
Well if I had to construct time and space I'd do it with a computer simulation. So maybe God did it something like that; we've had computers for only a short while; imagine what a computer from billions of years in the future will be able to do. We could be running on something like that; a giant game of Coney's Game of Life that God is running...
Pure conjecture! Plus, you have the ability to read in your god's mind. Secondly, you can have the strongest argument in the Universe, without evidence for it, it's only an assertion. So really, you should say that you have an argument, and be agnostic. We have seven page of "debate", where is your god? Really, it is what every atheist/agnostic/skeptic wants you to provide.
I've already given enough evidence:
I've been making substantial posts with sound logic in them and its been nearly all handwaving back in return like your last post.
Great minds think alike; we may only have little minds compared to God, but on the basics we will agree, so yes we can read God's mind.
Sound logic doesn't necessary translate into reality. I'm handwaving nothing, i'm just asking you for physical evidence of your god. Please make a post, with relative brevity where you refute all (or some of) the arguments of the other sides.
For exemple, how a being in a timeless space act? If you said, a different "sort" of time, it would be better, but here it seems you are postulating god's coordinates as something like this g(x,y,z) or g(x,y,z,t) with t as some constant.
For physical evidence I'd point to the fine tuning of the multiverse for life.
Photon are timeless yet they change position and wavelength so change is possible without time. If we introduce the concept of another sort of time we get an infinite regress hence a timeless intelligence is required.
What arguments do you have against the existence of God?
Photon are timeless? I disagree with you about infinite regress needing intelligence, if it is ever possible. You see, i don't know and that's it.
Again, how can something act if there is of time? I don't have arguments per se, i'm just saying that there is no need for "creation", as some entity with agency doing the work. Because of what?, with the advent of science, plenty of phenomena have been explained leaving no place for all the deities which have been imagined.
Further more, no miracle, or more so because you are deist, ambigous event happens this days and ancient "miracles" would have left traces that we could not explained with science.
The multiverse destroys the idea of fine-tuning.
Pure fantasy. You can repeat your belief ad infinitum, it is still unevidenced.
Does this thread have an end?
We can only hope...
Of course not, we have not yet begun to deal with the special plea, that a god is above all the logic and rules laid won by those attempting to prove this god.
"Of course not, we have not yet begun to deal with the special plea, that a god is above all the logic and rules laid won by those attempting to prove this god."
Whilst insisting he is using logic to evidence that diety, the irony is palpable. Special pleading, begging the question, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and an argument from incredulity fallacy, Dan has used them all in this thread.
Seems unlikely, it certainly doesn't need 6 pages, it was vapid nonsense right form the start.