A logical argument for God (my audio response)

[ILOVEJESUS]

Andrew66 wrote

Dear Michael

I must defend the assertion that atheists and theists generally agree that "something has always existed".

If you read the main books written by top atheists - scientists and physicists in particular (Dawkins, Krause,) and Theists (Craig, Ross) alike, as well as any serious blog or internet post on the topic, all serious thinkers concede that something must have always existed.

All this means is that there could never have been absolutely nothing (no existence) - as without some existance there is no capacity for change or evolution to explain our present condition.

You may be confused by scientific notions that something can come from "nothing" in quantum mechanics, such as quantum fluctuations and virtual particles - which seem to pop into existance for no reason. However pre-conditions of space, time, and a fluctuating gravitations field are needed as a requisite to produce these events - hence there is no known entity or event in science which is known, or even theorized to date which pop's out of nothing (meaning non-existence).

The author's arugments are flawed for other reasons, but not this one.

This is highly presumptuous. The truth is we do not know what existed before our existence. There may be multiverses existing on a continuous cycle of big bangs, or bubble universes etc. The truth is our science cannot describe how multiverses would interact with each other, what they float about in, what different sciences could exist or not in them etc. It is speculation to help offer explanation to observations and science that we can see and prove.
The question for you is if the universe(s) are indeed cyclic and infinite, where does this God you believe in , live? What is its purpose? What is its reason for being or value in all of this?
If you believe that we all "poofed" in from nothing by the hand of a magic creator, then you are disagreeing with all the bollocks you are talking about in your post. Therefore there could be, "nothing", from which your magician buddy produced ourselves and all we see and study. Quite what this "nothing" is is a mystery etc. If there was "nothing" pre existence, what made the stuff your God used to create everything? Did that same manufacturer also create God to create everything? If so does God also have a God? etc you get where this is heading.

[Michael]

Andrew66 wrote

Dear Michael

I must defend the assertion that atheists and theists generally agree that "something has always existed".

If you read the main books written by top atheists - scientists and physicists in particular (Dawkins, Krause,) and Theists (Craig, Ross) alike, as well as any serious blog or internet post on the topic, all serious thinkers concede that something must have always existed.

All this means is that there could never have been absolutely nothing (no existence) - as without some existance there is no capacity for change or evolution to explain our present condition.

You may be confused by scientific notions that something can come from "nothing" in quantum mechanics, such as quantum fluctuations and virtual particles - which seem to pop into existance for no reason. However pre-conditions of space, time, and a fluctuating gravitations field are needed as a requisite to produce these events - hence there is no known entity or event in science which is known, or even theorized to date which pop's out of nothing (meaning non-existence).

The author's arugments are flawed for other reasons, but not this one.

Have you ever heard this saying?
"The only way to be a bad atheist is to believe in a god"
I heard it the other day when watching "The Atheist Experience". I can't remember who said it, either Martin or Matt, but I think it sums things up perfectly.

There is only 1 thing that makes you an atheist, and that's your stance on the god situation. Not how long the universe has been around, not what caused the universe, not even what colour the universe's underwear is.

There is no atheistic decree from on-high. If Dawkins and Krauss decide they are utterly convinced that "There was always something!" there is no obligation for any atheist to do anything but look at them, shrug their shoulders and say "that's nice, but I don't think that's right" if they want. (By the way, maybe in future look into it first before you say stuff like that, as Krauss' stance appears to be far more complicated than the "something always existed" you are trying to represent it as.)

So even if they did say it, it really doesn't matter what they say. They don't speak for atheists. This, of course, was my point. You can't assume to speak for atheists. You can't assume to speak for theists. They don't all agree, and to say they do is to ridiculously over-generalise and when you're making a video, you're just showing me you have a proclivity for not representing reality in a way that will convince me of anything.


By the way, no, I'm not getting confused with quantum mechanics. I'm not a scientist, and I've long ago decided not to put my stock in defending something I don't comprehend enough. So I won't put forth that argument beyond referencing what others may have to say on it.

[Andrew66]

Hi Michael

You wrote alot so its hard to pick it through for quote by quote analysis.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the just of what I think you weree saying is that Atheisim is not a belief system but a lack of belief system, and different Atheists would have differing opinions about the truth of our reality. Am I right?

I agree with you in part, as if you really strip it down I think the only thing an individual can ever truly know for sure his what Descartes said "I think therefore I am". Everything else can be debated, and this includes a concept that perhaps eixstence can pop out from non-existence.

All I was saying is that no-one that I know of - Atheist, Theist, Martian, Spaghetti Monster, Spiderman or anyone else - who has serioiusly written or spoke on the subject - including Lawrence Krause (I read his book carefully) has asserted the idea that something has ever come from absolute nothing (where nothing is defined as complete and utter non-existence - emphasis).

This by itself has neither religious or arelgiious connotations, and I have not tried to imply that it does.

I was simply defending againstyour previous remarks against the original author of this blog where you seemed to be speaking for all Atheists in that they refute the something has always existed. You cannot speak for all Atheists on that matter.

In other words, to claim the possibility that there was ever a state where truly nothing existed is a heretic position. It is probably not even yours, you may be simply introducing the concept to stress the point that nothing is certain - which is fair enough.

[Michael]

Andrew66 wrote

Hi Michael

You wrote alot so its hard to pick it through for quote by quote analysis.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the just of what I think you weree saying is that Atheisim is not a belief system but a lack of belief system, and different Atheists would have differing opinions about the truth of our reality. Am I right?

I agree with you in part, as if you really strip it down I think the only thing an individual can ever truly know for sure his what Descartes said "I think therefore I am". Everything else can be debated, and this includes a concept that perhaps eixstence can pop out from non-existence.

All I was saying is that no-one that I know of - Atheist, Theist, Martian, Spaghetti Monster, Spiderman or anyone else - who has serioiusly written or spoke on the subject - including Lawrence Krause (I read his book carefully) has asserted the idea that something has ever come from absolute nothing (where nothing is defined as complete and utter non-existence - emphasis).

This by itself has neither religious or arelgious connotations, and I have not tried to imply that it does.

I was simply defending againstyour previous remarks against the original author of this blog where you seemed to be speaking for all Atheists in that they refute the something has always existed. You cannot speak for all Atheists on that matter.

In other words, to claim the possibility that there was ever a state where truly nothing existed is a heretic position. It is probably not even yours, you may be simply introducing the concept to stress the point that nothing is certain - which is fair enough.

And yet you clearly didn't read either of my posts that carefully. I'm also guessing you didn't read that link I gave you carefully either. Here's a snippet of it.

Lawrence Krauss wrote

Instead, sticking firm to the classical ontological definition of nothing as “the absence of anything”—whatever this means—so essential to theological, and some subset of philosophical intransigence, strikes me as essentially sterile, backward, useless and annoying. If “something” is a physical quantity, to be determined by experiment, then so is ‘nothing’. It may be that even an eternal multiverse in which all universes and laws of nature arise dynamically will still leave open some ‘why’ questions, and therefore never fully satisfy theologians and some philosophers. But focusing on that issue and ignoring the remarkable progress we can make toward answering perhaps the most miraculous aspect of the something from nothing question—understanding why there is ‘stuff’ and not empty space, why there is space at all, and how both stuff and space and even the forces we measure could arise from no stuff and no space—is, in my opinion, impotent, and useless. It was in that sense—the classical ontological claim about the nature of some abstract nothing, compared to the physical insights about this subject that have developed—that I made the provocative, and perhaps inappropriately broad statement that this sort of philosophical speculation has not led to any progress over the centuries.

What I tried to do in my writing on this subject is carefully attempt to define precisely what scientists operationally mean by nothing, and to differentiate between what we know, and what is merely plausible, and what we might be able to probe in the future, and what we cannot. The rest is, to me, just noise.

Here is the link again. My point now is the same point I made then, which is the same point I made the first time. Since you're such a careful reader, I have no doubt you'll pay attention this time.

Firstly, the simplification of the idea to "there must have always been something" is ridiculously over-generalising the ideas, to a point of mis-representing them.

Secondly, even if the "serious thinkers" did say that, there are plenty of people who don't say that. Those people are still atheists, and still count towards the people included when someone tries to claim "atheists and theists agree on this". No, they don't. Some atheists probably do say "yeah, there was probably something there", a lot don't, and say "we can't know, I'm not going to speculate".

The simple fact that you haven't encountered them shows more towards your lack of a wide reading base more than it does them not being out there.

Thirdly, it is just as arrogant for you to sit here and claim you know a) all the "important" atheists and b) what all the "important" atheists are thinking when you mis-represent the views of those you reference by drastically over-simplifying them. as it was for that other guy to make the original claim in the first place.


I also find it funny that at one point you accuse me of trying to speak for all atheists, as if I'm saying we all think nothing existed, and then *poof* something. You even go as far as to chide me

You cannot speak for all Atheists on that matter.

Since you're such a careful reader, I would implore you to go back through my posts (carefully, this time) and notice that THIS IS MY ENTIRE POINT.

[Andrew66]

[quote=Michael;672914]And yet you clearly didn't read either of my posts that carefully. I'm also guessing you didn't read that link I gave you carefully either. Here's a snippet of it.



Here is the link again. My point now is the same point I made then, which is the same point I made the first time. Since you're such a careful reader, I have no doubt you'll pay attention this time.

Firstly, the simplification of the idea to "there must have always been something" is ridiculously over-generalising the ideas, to a point of mis-representing them.

Secondly, even if the "serious thinkers" did say that, there are plenty of people who don't say that. Those people are still atheists, and still count towards the people included when someone tries to claim "atheists and theists agree on this". No, they don't. Some atheists probably do say "yeah, there was probably something there", a lot don't, and say "we can't know, I'm not going to speculate".

The simple fact that you haven't encountered them shows more towards your lack of a wide reading base more than it does them not being out there.

Thirdly, it is just as arrogant for you to sit here and claim you know a) all the "important" atheists and b) what all the "important" atheists are thinking when you mis-represent the views of those you reference by drastically over-simplifying them. as it was for that other guy to make the original claim in the first place.


I also find it funny that at one point you accuse me of trying to speak for all atheists, as if I'm saying we all think nothing existed, and then *poof* something. You even go as far as to chide me



Since you're such a careful reader, I would implore you to go back through my posts (carefully, this time) and notice that

Michael wrote

THIS IS MY ENTIRE POINT.

If you read Krauses book as carefully as I did, who would have noticed that barried deep in the book he quickly admits that something must have actually always existed - he just goes on to submit that that something could just as well be nature vs. a God. I suppose I could dig for the quote in Krauses book, but as you are clearly a more careful, deep and intelligent person than I, I am surprised you missed it. oh yeah

FUCK YOU!!!! - no offense!!!

[Michael]

Ah, yes. "fuck you", the sign of a great debater. However, it's nice to know that I can get under your skin so easily.

I haven't read Krauss' book, nor will I be anytime soon. It's not that I have a problem with his ideas - rather, I find them fascinating - it's that I simply don't have time to devote to reading a lot of books. I have read some of Dawkins stuff, and I have a few of them on Audiobook. I may get Krauss' on audiobook if I can find it, I do like to listen to podcasts and audio books in the car instead of the radio.

I prefer to watch the lectures, like the one his book is based on, and similar talks.

Please do show me the quote, I'd love to see it so that I have some frame of reference to this claim of yours. Without it, I'm afraid, your claim can only be taken as imagined fancy.

By the way, I'm so sorry to hear about the accident. I'm assuming there was some sort of brain-injuring incident, as I can't think of another reason for why you would

screw up such a simple thing as quote tags.

My thoughts go out to you. Maybe when I finally meet your doctor, I can tell him that I "hoped" for your recovery all along.

All the best.

[ILOVEJESUS]

I have listened to Krauss on a lot of occasions, thanks to You Tube. This always existing mumbo Jumbo is not something I have seen reflected, and I would like to see this quote too.