Dr. Brown weighs in with his thoughts on the atheist, non-believer rally in DC this past Saturday, asks listeners some probing questions on the Trayvon Martin killing, and discusses how verbal attacks against gays are wrong — and should be — while it is open season on professing Christians.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The topic today has once again revealed many deep misunderstandings and areas of lack of trust within the body over the issue of race. Let us put the issues on the table plainly, honestly, out of love for God, and love for one another.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Let justice be done in the killing of Trayvon Martin. Let truth come to light, let us learn from this, and let us move forward as a Nation.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
The Deity of Messiah: Son of God or Chosen Man? (DVD Debate)
ONLY $15 POSTAGE PAID!
Call 1-800-278-9978, or ORDER ONLINE!
Other Resources:
Dr. Brown Interviews Oxford Professor John Lennox and Takes Your Questions
Reflections on Atheism and Children’s Religious Education, and Answers to Your Questions (including Six-Day Creation?)
Are Evangelicals Obsessed with Homosexuality? VOR Article by Dr. Brown
Writing in the On Faith blog for the Washington Post, Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach claimed that evangelical Christians have “utterly marginalized themselves with their obsession over homosexuality.” Is this true? To be sure, in the aftermath of the elections, a lively debate is taking place as […]
Boris,
Why would you doubt that I’d respond to your post? This is the arrogance I was talking about. You actually think those are actually good arguments, don’t you? You continuously quote from your founding fathers of new atheism.
I’ll address you point by point. First of all, if you actually hold the position that Jesus never existed then you’ve got to explain not just the origins of Christianity but all of the early historians that reference Jesus. Josepheus, Pliny, Lucian, Tacitus and Mara bar-Serapion for starters.
I never said Christianity was the only worldview that values life, I said that atheists are borrowing from the Christian worldview in saying that life has value. Don’t read so much into things. Seeing that the atheist fathers all come from predominantly Christian majority countries and I had assumed you’re in the USA or UK.
You have yet to prove that your morality is objective. You simply stated that you value life and etc. That means absolutely nothing. What makes life objectively valuable? Obviously cultures and societies through history have disagreed with you, why were they wrong? What is your objective moral standard? Life has value because you say so?
The rest of your rhetoric is just you repeating yourself and little substance to anything you’ve said. You assume things without proving them. So, tell me. As a secular humanist do you actually assert the proposition that there is no God? Or do you simply withhold belief in God?
I would really appreciate an answer to that.
And the ironic thing is that you tell me to address you point by point and stop ignoring you. But, I’ve been addressing you point by point. You’ve yet to respond to anything I’ve said regarding the definition of atheism or Kalam Cosmological Argument; namely the ignorance of astrophysics and modern cosmology concerning energy and matter.
Boris,
Did Alexander the Great exist? Did King Tut exist? If so, why.
Now I already stated my basis for morality and defined how I objectively determine good from evil.—Boris
Okay, you stated YOUR basis for morality,you didn’t show that morals are objective. At best, your “morals” can be consistent with certain beliefs you have, but that’s a far cry from proving that morals are objective. Someone may simply disagree with your view of human life; someone may put very little value on life. From that point, they can come up with their own morals, and their morals ultimately are just as legitimate as yours. (inasmuch as they both stem from your own opinions)
“I don’t care whether there is a maker of life or God or there isn’t. There are no verifiable consequences either way.” – Boris
There is hope. If you were truly a force for good in the world you would realize the value of hope.
Wait, wait, wait, Dr. Bart Ehrman is a Christian apologist now??????? Since when?
Boris, Bart Ehrman is arguably THE leading skeptic of the Christian faith today. He is CONSTANTLY quoted by Atheists, Muslims, etc. who want to discredit the Biblical texts. He’s written books like “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” “Misquoting Jesus” and “Jesus, Interrupted” <— New York Times best sellers.
I know Eve had found a flawed basis for determining good from evil, for she “saw” (Gen 3:6, I Tim 2:14) that the fruit of the forbidden tree was good for food, but it was corrupt. It was not given by God for them to eat and it did cause death through sin.
We should eat the things God says is good to eat and become nourished thereby.
It seems to me that athiests at least as much as any other group are known to partake of the wrong spiritual meat.
Boris,
I would like to go back to the original subject of a priori matter. Matter has always existed in toto and only changes form? This is not a form of religion? Energy cannot dissipate matter into nothingness (E does not = MC squared?) Boson and string theory MAY support your theory, but your elusive argument begs a certain amount of faith in a presumptive conclusion. This does not even begin to divide matter as to ‘alive’ or ‘dead’. You have some explaining to do.
In Him, Ron M.
continuing:
Both Einstein and Moses “saw the light” as the reverse reduction common denominator of the subbest atomic particle (quantum) and tiniest wave (string) in connection to energy and mass; spectrum analysis is also the Covenant of Noah.
Even Zen Buddhists (I am not one of them) admit to annihilation as the requirement of ‘enlightenment’: you are flailing and grasping at the void for your salvation. I pray that Messengers of Light will instruct us in wisdom concerning error in our empirical myopia.
Inn Him, Ron M.
Eric,
I’ll respond to everything you said point by point:
Why would you doubt that I’d respond to your post? This is the arrogance I was talking about. You actually think those are actually good arguments, don’t you? You continuously quote from your founding fathers of new atheism.
Response: If the arguments I posted aren’t any good then you are welcome to refute them. Until then we must both assume that they are indeed good arguments. Now exactly what is “new atheism” as opposed to say good old atheism like this: “Everything has a natural explanation. The moon is not a god but a great rock and the sun a hot rock” – Anaxagoras (c.500-428 BCE)
I’ll address you point by point. First of all, if you actually hold the position that Jesus never existed then you’ve got to explain not just the origins of Christianity but all of the early historians that reference Jesus. Josepheus, Pliny, Lucian, Tacitus and Mara bar-Serapion for starters.
Response: Christianity evolved from other older sun worshiping cults. None of the historians you mentioned were alive when Jesus supposedly lived and so their accounts are not reliable. They were only repeating what we now call an urban legend because they were too far removed to verify what they had heard. None of them name their sources and so their accounts are only hearsay. Hearsay is only accepted as evidence in religious circles. We don’t even know if any of these accounts are authentic. Even many Christian scholars think the golden paragraphs in the works of Josephus are forgeries done by Church propagandist Eusebius. There are problems with Annals as well. It must be really embarrassing for you to have to resort to second century historians to try to prove something about the early first century.
I never said Christianity was the only worldview that values life, I said that atheists are borrowing from the Christian worldview in saying that life has value. Don’t read so much into things. Seeing that the atheist fathers all come from predominantly Christian majority countries and I had assumed you’re in the USA or UK.
Response: There aren’t any sayings or teachings of Jesus that can’t be found in other older literature. There aren’t any Hebrew laws that didn’t previously exist in other older cultures. So on what basis do you claim that a certain value comes from Christianity or for that matter any values at all? I’m saying that Christians are borrowing from a secular humanist worldview when they claim to value life. As a whole Christians did not become tame, civilized and humane until the rise of secular humanism and skepticism a few centuries ago. Until then Christians were hunting heretics, burning witches and books, fighting wars of aggression, stifling free inquiry and doing a lot of other despicable things. Should we believe Christians all of a sudden had an attack of conscience and started behaving civilized all on their own?
You have yet to prove that your morality is objective. You simply stated that you value life and etc. That means absolutely nothing. What makes life objectively valuable?
Response: The alternative. And believe it or not everybody only gets one.
Obviously cultures and societies through history have disagreed with you, why were they wrong? What is your objective moral standard?
Response: I answered that. My morals are objectively based on the value of life itself.
Life has value because you say so?
Response: I can’t speak for other people. I’m aware that there are many people like George Zimmerman and the people who support him and what he did who place little value on the lives of other people. These people are dangerous and in the more civilized nations they have laws that protect citizens from animals like Zimmerman. There are even people who don’t value their own lives and they often commit suicide or turn to religion for solace thereby committing intellectual suicide.
The rest of your rhetoric is just you repeating yourself and little substance to anything you’ve said. You assume things without proving them.
Response: Now that’s hilarious! Have you ever taken an inventory of all the things that you assume without any proof?
So, tell me. As a secular humanist do you actually assert the proposition that there is no God? Or do you simply withhold belief in God?
I would really appreciate an answer to that.
Response: I’d guess that I’m as sure that the Christian God doesn’t exist, as you are that the Gods of other religions don’t exist.
And the ironic thing is that you tell me to address you point by point and stop ignoring you. But, I’ve been addressing you point by point. You’ve yet to respond to anything I’ve said regarding the definition of atheism or Kalam Cosmological Argument; namely the ignorance of astrophysics and modern cosmology concerning energy and matter.
Response: How does one become arrogant enough to claim to know more about modern cosmology than cosmologists and in fact the entire scientific community? Scientists deal with evidence not arguments. I’ve already exposed the fatal flaws in the Kalam argument and proved that it is riddled with logical fallacies. What more do you want? You just can’t let it go can you? Without that argument all your other theistic arguments fall flat on their face.
EDH
Did Alexander the Great exist? Did King Tut exist? If so, why.
Response: We found Tut’s tomb. Where’s Jesus’ tomb?
Okay, you stated YOUR basis for morality, you didn’t show that morals are objective. At best, your “morals” can be consistent with certain beliefs you have, but that’s a far cry from proving that morals are objective. Someone may simply disagree with your view of human life; someone may put very little value on life. From that point, they can come up with their own morals, and their morals ultimately are just as legitimate as yours. (inasmuch as they both stem from your own opinions)
Response: Every system of morality is based in axiomatic claims. My axiomatic claim is that morality is objectively rooted in human nature and life itself. What’s your counter-claim? The boogeyman did it?
Wait, wait, wait, Dr. Bart Ehrman is a Christian apologist now??????? Since when?
Boris, Bart Ehrman is arguably THE leading skeptic of the Christian faith today. He is CONSTANTLY quoted by Atheists, Muslims, etc. who want to discredit the Biblical texts. He’s written books like “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” “Misquoting Jesus” and “Jesus, Interrupted” <— New York Times best sellers.
Response: Ehrman is a promoter of the Jesus of history hoax.
ron david metcalf
I would like to go back to the original subject of a priori matter. Matter has always existed in toto and only changes form? This is not a form of religion? Energy cannot dissipate matter into nothingness (E does not = MC squared?) Boson and string theory MAY support your theory, but your elusive argument begs a certain amount of faith in a presumptive conclusion. This does not even begin to divide matter as to ‘alive’ or ‘dead’. You have some explaining to do.
Response: Scientists base the notion that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed on empirical observation. Since when is any religion based on empirical observation? We don’t see scientists gathering together once a week and singing about and praising the law of mass-energy conservation.
Boris,
“The Jesus of history hoax.” That brought a smile to my face!
See the inconsistency of the atheists here? Boris, you quoted from Anaxagoras. Please tell me what historical method you’re using to determine whether or not Anaxagoras really existed or not? 🙂
Did you even bother to “google” any of the names I mentioned? If you would’ve simply done just that you would know that 3 out of the 5 people who I’ve mentioned are from the first century. Ignorance is excusable but just simply refusing to accept facts is not excusable. Plus, I didn’t mention Paul because I figured you would’ve brushed it off, but I guess I will just simply ask you why Paul is not a reliable source? Bart Ehrman seems to think he’s reliable, why don’t you?
You are obviously influenced heavily by Dan Barker. The interesting thing is that you view is based on an anti-Semitic foundation. When German scholarship started to produce these alleged parallels to these mythologies, they were doing it because they would not accept a Jewish Jesus. They could not accept a Jesus who was Jewish, they recreated the Jewish Jesus as the Aryan Jesus. Once you accept a Jewish Jesus and understand who the historical Jesus is based on all of the sources we have of him, but, not only that but I challenge you to quote one first-hand source of any of those mythologies and show me the parallel to the Gospel accounts. I just wish you would hold yourself to the same standards you’re holding me and everyone else here to.
Again Boris, show me these “older” writings that contain all of the teachings of Jesus and all of the Hebrew laws. Be consistent with your historical methodology and prove it. Aren’t you the one who demanded evidence and names when I mentioned Jesus was mentioned in sources outside of the New Testament? Are you above your own standard? Why don’t you provide some proof, according to your logic if you had the proof you would’ve posted it instead of talking about it. Of course no one who presents that type of illogic truly holds to it, so I don’t fault you. But I am curious where your proof is. Just so you know I’m going to be asking you how you are dating your sources and hold you to the exact same standards the super-skeptical new atheists ask of us when we are asked of the Bible.
Now concerning the morality again, show me what the values of life are and how your perception of the values of life are objective? You are missing the argument, show me how you know what the values of life are. How are they absolute and not just your mere opinions of what the values of life should be?
You then say, “I’d guess that I’m as sure that the Christian God doesn’t exist, as you are that the Gods of other religions don’t exist.”
Care to share how you are “sure” of that? Again, here are your assumptions. Do you know why I reject the gods of other religions? No, you do not. Can you tell me why you can’t answer my question though? Instead of throwing up sand and turning on the smoke screen, could you actually answer my question? I didn’t ask you anything about Christianity, I asked you if you assert the proposition that there is no God or you simply withhold belief in God. Please do address the question. Again, you accuse me of ignoring you but here you are ignoring my question. But, I do not hold you to the same standards you are holding me to. I am just pointing out more inconsistency on your end.
Boris, How am I acting like I know more about cosmologists when I am telling you to go and pick up an introduction to cosmology textbook or an astrophysics textbook. These textbooks aren’t written by angry atheists who are trying to disprove the existence of the God whom they hate or written by fundamental Christians who are trying to prove the existence of the God they love, they are scientists who we agree may or may not have a bias but this is where our science comes from so lets go by them. This is not a disputed fact, no serious scientific community disagrees that the universe began to exist at a period of time. We classify this as the “big bang”, either you’re being deceptive here or you honestly do not know that the eternal universe theory has been rejected as a whole by the bulk of the science community. As far as you “exposing” the argument, so far you’ve only shown you do not understand this argument or the morality argument for that matter.
I just have to add, Boris.. You said, “If the arguments I posted aren’t any good then you are welcome to refute them. Until then we must both assume that they are indeed good arguments.”
Plenty of others and myself included have been refuting each and every argument you’ve used. Even if we go with your logic here, why would you even assume it’s a good argument just because people aren’t discussing it? Perhaps it is not a good argument and not worth responding to? I am just presenting other perspectives here not that I’m saying your arguments aren’t worthy of responses. I just have absolutely no idea where you atheists come up with these ideas. I don’t blame you because you are just a product of new atheism, by that I mean you’re merely repeating the arguments of your atheist forefathers. Which I do truly feel badly for you and I do pray that you escape that snare in Jesus’ name.
Peace and long life, Fellow Brethren-in-Christ.
Off all of the topics that I could have picked to be my first response, I wish it wasn’t this one by virtue of the incident’s not having happened…but it did. I AM a police officer and though I wasn’t there, the whole think stinks of not only a murder but also a cover up based on nepotism. It’s easy to say that we just don’t know but I caution those that believe Mr. Zimmerman’s tale to truly look at the facts (told to stop by the department’s dispatcher, recent proof that it’s not his voice screaming for help, shown to be the actual aggressor, etc.) as they are presented AND to view the video tape of his arrest, which CLEARLY shows that he was lying about his physical state of a broken nose and bruised back of the head; his clothes weren’t even dirty. The first lead homicide detective didn’t believe him and moved to have him charged…but the case was taken away from him and subsequently, Mr. Zimmerman was released. Bigotry is an unGodly sin that is every bit as wrong as any other sin and we need to prayerfully examine our thoughts and feelings when it comes to this issue. Our heavenly Father YHWH bless you all in the matchless and mighty Name of Jesus and live long and prosper.
“We don’t see scientists gathering together once a week and singing about and praising the law of mass-energy conservation.”
Agreed. Many scientists don’t have anything to sing or praise about. Why is that?
Objective v subjective often depends upon the “weight” of the observer as to degree and professional journal publication. So your “general” argument appears to be undergraduate even in your own field of expertise.
In Him, Ron M.
I’ve read just a little about the belief of atheist scientists, who, although they don’t sing in a church once a week they nevertheless sing praises to each other regularly, believe that the universe “was” capable of creating itself, and that it did, in fact do that—-(because of)…..the consistent laws they see at work in the universe. Who/what created these observable laws that “allowed” the universe to create itself? There must have “never” been a time when there was “nothing” then. It seems to me, although I’m not a student of the Sciences, that String Theory adds to, or complicates the hunt for the golden goose rather than reducing the laws of physics to the first moment of creation they seem to do exactly what their theory states which is string theories together in an endless loop. Parallel Universes and stuff? Couldn’t we say that a Creator God is evidenced by empirical reductionism of all theoretical physics? Doesn’t the singularity, the Big Bang, you know, Dawkins theory that the universe was capable of creating itself presuppose that it somehow became “aware” that it could manifest itself? Wouldn’t that imply that the laws of physics (the raw materials) were “already” present in order to empower the universe to deliberately manifest itself and that is the same as saying that the visible universe in a “deliberate act of creation”, was first “Consciously Aware” of itself? Hawkings theory of spontaneous creation without the need for God turns into evidence for a Creator who is Self-Aware and Intelligent regardless. I think Christians understand as atheists do not, that the manifest evidence is in our favor for an Intelligent Creator of all things visible and invisible and we call Him God. Atheists choose not to acknowledge the Creator by His Name that’s all. No, that’s not all. They choose not to acknowledge the truth that the Creator is capable of making Himself known to mankind and neither do the atheists abide by the “laws” of salvation that were put in place by Him. He has always existed and everything is summed up in Him. It sounds like atheists need more faith to believe what they do than those who believe it is God who created and who is Himself Self Existent with no beginning and no end. That reminds me of something else.
There’s a worthwhile book for Christians written by Frank Turek that I’d recommend to those who have trouble reasoning with atheists or agnostics, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.” It’s sometimes funny. It’s not a book about Physics though, it’s more deductive reasoning and logic. Important info. I would recommend all Youtube videos featuring John Lennox. Or just Google his name.
All of my questions were rhetorical and don’t require a response.
“Caught in a trap… Cain’t walk out… because I love you too much ba-by”
ok, time to give Boris some slack. Yes, the black-hole theory envelops itself like the ‘dragon-eating-its-tail’ sign of eternity; spinning its wheels forever…
My Standard is different, Boris: my yoke easier, my burden lighter, even though the gospel of Good News appears to you contradictory to hating my life to the death. I know; been there, done that.
Run away from the cross on the steeple; doesn’t do any good; in the darkness, when the window becomes a mirror, you still must face your own mortality. But when you’re caught in a bear-trap, the kind thing is to try to talk you down from the shock before you carefully unspring it.
Maybe you aren’t there yet, but you will be; guarantee it. And you seem to have more sense than many in facing it. Blessings to you,
In Jesus’ love and name, Ron David Metcalf
Dr. Brown, glad I could bring a smile to your face. Here’s a recent comment by Bart Ehrman on the subject of the historical Jesus:
“Mythicists’ arguments are fairly plausible… According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus’ death, written by people who never saw the man…. Most importantly…these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again…. The mythicists have some right things to say… The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical.” – Bart Ehrman.
Care to comment Dr. Brown? Anyone?
Eric
See the inconsistency of the atheists here? Boris, you quoted from Anaxagoras. Please tell me what historical method you’re using to determine whether or not Anaxagoras really existed or not?
Response: We have something that was likely written by Anaxagoras. How come we have nothing written by Jesus Christ? The point is not that Anaxagoras was a real person versus a literary invention, like say Socrates or Jesus. The point is that atheism has been around forever – longer than any religion. Anyway the sources that contain information about real historical personages aren’t written in the style of fiction and don’t relate a bunch of tales of the supernatural and descriptions of various kinds of bogey entities. Historical narratives don’t contain dialog – word for word conversations with people all speaking in complete sentences. Only fictive narratives contain extended conversations. This is why any reasonable person is skeptical about claims that Jesus actually existed in the first place. Couple that with a complete lack of evidence for such a person and you have no case for a historical Jesus. This is why people have to be frightened into believing in Jesus with the fear of hell – one of your many other beliefs for which there isn’t a shred of evidence.
Did you even bother to “google” any of the names I mentioned? If you would’ve simply done just that you would know that 3 out of the 5 people who I’ve mentioned are from the first century. Ignorance is excusable but just simply refusing to accept facts is not excusable.
Response: I don’t have to google those historians. I must tell you I’ve debated this subject hundreds of times and I know everything that Christian apologists have in their arsenal and as you can clearly see, exactly how to refute it all. Again none of these historians were alive when Jesus supposedly was and most of them were born several decades afterward. I read everything Josephus and Tacitus wrote in college. Did you know that Josephus said that Hercules was a real historical person and that he claimed to witness a ten-foot tall giant cast out demons? If we can’t trust Josephus’ eyewitness accounts why should we trust his decades old hearsay accounts? They’re Christian forgeries anyway. And again you really ought to be ashamed and embarrassed trying to foist such nonsense as evidence.
Plus, I didn’t mention Paul because I figured you would’ve brushed it off, but I guess I will just simply ask you why Paul is not a reliable source? Bart Ehrman seems to think he’s reliable, why don’t you?
Response: Because I don’t believe Paul existed either – at least not the person who is described in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Where’s the evidence Paul existed? NO historians from ANY period in antiquity mention a word about this supposed personage. With all the people Paul supposedly rubbed elbows with how could that be? It couldn’t.
You are obviously influenced heavily by Dan Barker.
Response: Now that’s a name I’m going to have to google. Is he an ex-minister? Don’t know him.
The interesting thing is that you view is based on an anti-Semitic foundation.
Response: I’m Jewish by birth.
When German scholarship…. Again Boris, show me these “older” writings that contain all of the teachings of Jesus and all of the Hebrew laws. Be consistent with your historical methodology and prove it. Aren’t you the one who demanded evidence and names when I mentioned Jesus was mentioned in sources outside of the New Testament? Are you above your own standard? Why don’t you provide some proof, according to your logic if you had the proof you would’ve posted it instead of talking about it. Of course no one who presents that type of illogic truly holds to it, so I don’t fault you. But I am curious where your proof is. Just so you know I’m going to be asking you how you are dating your sources and hold you to the exact same standards the super-skeptical new atheists ask of us when we are asked of the Bible.
Response: Not only do many of the teachings of Jesus parallel those of Buddha for one example, Buddha was also said to have been born to a virgin, his birth was also announced by a messianic star, when he was twelve he astounded everyone at the temple with his knowledge and near the end of his life Buddha is reported to have transfigured on a mountain.
Here are the older Near Eastern laws that show emphatic parallels to Israel’s laws:
Ur-Namma Code, 2040-2027, from Sumerian Ur, 22 laws
Bilalama Code, 1930, from Akkadian Eshunna; 59 laws
Lipit- Ishtar Code, 1864-1854, from Sumerian Isin; Approximately 18 laws
Hammurabi Code, 1728-1636, from Amorite Babylon; 282 laws
Hittite Laws, 1400-1200, from Hattusa; 200 laws
Middle Assyrian laws, 1114-1076, from Ashur; 116 laws
Neo-Babylonian Laws, 626-539, from Babylon; 9 laws
What can I say? Read ‘em and weep. Perhaps you should stop asking me to prove things before you find out what you really don’t want to know.
Now concerning the morality again, show me what the values of life are and how your perception of the values of life are objective? You are missing the argument, show me how you know what the values of life are. How are they absolute and not just your mere opinions of what the values of life should be?
Response: I’m not an absolutist, that’s your deal. Not everybody has the same values, which I already pointed out. My point is that morality is based in choices and choices are rooted in values. For humans, the most basic choice is between life and death, so the ultimate value is life. Now if you don’t like that answer tell me what it is that humans value more than life.
You then say, “I’d guess that I’m as sure that the Christian God doesn’t exist, as you are that the Gods of other religions don’t exist.”
Care to share how you are “sure” of that? Again, here are your assumptions. Do you know why I reject the gods of other religions? No, you do not.
Response: Oh yes I do. You’re a Bible believer.
Can you tell me why you can’t answer my question though? Instead of throwing up sand and turning on the smoke screen, could you actually answer my question? I didn’t ask you anything about Christianity, I asked you if you assert the proposition that there is no God or you simply withhold belief in God. Please do address the question. Again, you accuse me of ignoring you but here you are ignoring my question. But, I do not hold you to the same standards you are holding me to. I am just pointing out more inconsistency on your end.
Response: Let’s try this: Do you assert that there is no God of Islam or do you simply withhold belief in the God of Islam? I don’t believe there is a God and I state emphatically that the Christian God does not exist. Is that good enough for you?
Boris, How am I acting like I know more about cosmologists when I am telling you to go and pick up an introduction to cosmology textbook or an astrophysics textbook. These textbooks aren’t written by angry atheists who are trying to disprove the existence of the God whom they hate
Response: You can’t hate something you don’t believe exists. You don’t even know the first thing about atheism – which you hate.
or written by fundamental Christians who are trying to prove the existence of the God they love, they are scientists who we agree may or may not have a bias but this is where our science comes from so lets go by them.
Response: That’s precisely what I am doing. Nowhere in modern cosmology is the notion that mass-energy was created with or by or at the moment of the Big Bang. The universe as we know it expanded and is still expanding from a singularity that already contained the mass-energy that we observe today. It already contained the stuff you and I are made of.
This is not a disputed fact, no serious scientific community disagrees that the universe began to exist at a period of time.
Response: The universe as we know it had a beginning but once again the materials that comprise the universe always existed in one form or another.
We classify this as the “big bang”, either you’re being deceptive here or you honestly do not know that the eternal universe theory has been rejected as a whole by the bulk of the science community.
Response: I am not positing that notion at all.
As far as you “exposing” the argument, so far you’ve only shown you do not understand this argument or the morality argument for that matter.
Response: It is you who does not understand what the scientific consensus is. If what you said is true then why don’t we have any modern cosmologists making the First Cause Argument? The reason for that is because the First Cause Argument violates the law of mass-energy conservation, which states that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed. That is based on empirical observation, demonstration and experimentation. So the scientific consensus is that the universe as we know it had a beginning about 13.9 billion years ago but that the materials that comprise the universe have always existed in one form or another. One theory is that the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch and that the universe has expanded and contracted millions of times before. Now this is what is taught at every Christian college and university in the world that has an accredited science department. So if you don’t like modern cosmology I suggest you march right down to your local Christian school of higher learning and state your complaints to them. While there you can have them explain the facts of evolution by natural selection to you as well. This is what is so ridiculous about your anti-scientific nonsense. Not only do your own colleges and universities teach the very science you disagree with they go to great lengths to distance themselves from people like William Dembski and Michael Behe two of the major hoaxers behind the failed Intelligent Design Magic scam. You’re never going to learn anything about science from the professional liars at the Discovery Institute. Their charter with the IRS forbids them to even study science because they are listed as a religious organization. And this is where you people come up with all your wrong-headed ideas about science. First they (and you) misstate what a scientific theory really says and then you (and they) make a straw man argument against what you claim the theory says. That is about as intellectually dishonest as you can get. Yet this is what we always get from people who constantly claim to have and speak the truth. You don’t and you don’t.
I just have to add, Boris.. You said, “If the arguments I posted aren’t any good then you are welcome to refute them. Until then we must both assume that they are indeed good arguments.”
Plenty of others and myself included have been refuting each and every argument you’ve used.
Response: Oh please, dream on. You haven’t refuted a thing I’ve said. I have given satisfactory responses to everything you’ve said just like I am doing right now. Your First Cause Argument is dead, killed by modern science. And again it’s guilty of several logical fallacies. No amount of whining and special pleading is going to resurrect that fatally flawed argument.
Even if we go with your logic here, why would you even assume it’s a good argument just because people aren’t discussing it? Perhaps it is not a good argument and not worth responding to? I am just presenting other perspectives here not that I’m saying your arguments aren’t worthy of responses.
Response: You’re really grasping at straws now. Refute the arguments or admit you can’t. No more games.
I just have absolutely no idea where you atheists come up with these ideas.
Response: We come up with ideas because unlike you we aren’t members of a cult that doesn’t allow ideas.
I don’t blame you because you are just a product of new atheism, by that I mean you’re merely repeating the arguments of your atheist forefathers. Which I do truly feel badly for you and I do pray that you escape that snare in Jesus’ name.
Response: I am hardly a product of whatever the new atheism is. I was born an atheist and I’ve always been one and so has my brother. My parents were not religious so if my atheism is the product of anything it’s good parenting. I didn’t check to see whether the people I quoted were atheists or not. The only books I’ve read on the subject of atheism are the God Delusion, god is Not Great by Hitchens, and a book by George Smith. I only read them because I wanted to see what everybody was talking about. So what that all says is that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to me and you definitely don’t know anything about atheism. Your claim that atheists hate God is just about as ignorant a claim as a person could possibly make. I truly feel badly for you and hope you escape the snare of religious servitude.
ron david metcalf
“We don’t see scientists gathering together once a week and singing about and praising the law of mass-energy conservation.”
Agreed. Many scientists don’t have anything to sing or praise about. Why is that?
Response: And you base that ridiculous statement on what exactly?
“Caught in a trap… Run away from the cross on the steeple; doesn’t do any good; in the darkness, when the window becomes a mirror, you still must face your own mortality.
Response: I have no problem facing my own mortality. Unlike Christians I don’t need to try to comfort myself with a bunch of escapist and life-avoidance fantasies about an afterlife in a magic happy land. I can’t think of anything more pathetic than that. You will die of your last injury or disease, the actual cause of death will be the same as it is for everyone: lack of oxygen to the brain. At that point you will cease to exist and what had been your memories, hopes, dreams and the rest of your thoughts will simply vanish. Do you have the strength of character to deal with that? I say you don’t.
At that point you will cease to exist and what had been your memories, hopes, dreams and the rest of your thoughts will simply vanish. Do you have the strength of character to deal with that? I say you don’t.
Philosophy major; arts & Englsih minor. Viet Nam was full-blown & waning. Hasn’t been a cultural time like it in history of U.S. Value of life (or lack of it) was much more topic of discussion than getting a job.
New Tribes Missions friends when a young teenager; doesn’t get much more radical than that on one hand; when I rebelled, couldn’t get too much more radical than I did on the other side.
BTW, the 20th C Germanic philosophers probably led me into a hopeless cul de sac even more than Hindu, Buddhist, & Native American thought; and that’s saying something.
Since you’re a scientist, why do you presume so much?
Existential despair is a leading cause of young adult suicide. Your Brave New World is bogus: I landed in a mental ward for a month for playing Russian roulette. You have zero hope: that’s not courage, it’s stupidity. GOD bless you anyway,
In Him, Ron M.
Boris,
I won’t be engaging you here, having done that sufficiently years ago. However, as long as you stay within our commenting guidelines (which I assume you’ve been doing so far), you’re quite welcome to continue posting.
As for Ehrman, since he utterly rejects your position on the existence of Jesus, quoting him to back your view is hardly the way to go.
I pray that God’s mercy would flood your life and bring you to repentance and faith. And I hope your wife is doing well too.
Not to mention walking away from an eighty-mile-an-hour motorcycle wreck and laughing about it.
Had a helment on, but not strapped. First impact on pavement hit on head, helmet flew off; then rolled twice onto side of road sand. You really do experience everything in slow motion when this happens.
No Fear = No Brains. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.” When you really get in trouble, your idols won’t help, as the prophets said. Eternal nothingness is nearly as scary as hell; you don’t fool me.
In Him, Ron M.
You know, I was writing a reply to Boris’ last post to me. Then I realized that I need to stop this. It is not because of Boris. It is that I noticed myself being quite condescending and even arrogant in some points. Boris, you can take this as me “running away” from your arguments if you want. I don’t mind. But for me, I apologize to you for misrepresenting my Lord Jesus who is not condescending and not arrogant at all. In fact He’s loving, forgiving, kind, merciful, patient, generous, the most important thing in my life and many other things I failed to mention and represent.
I do love you Boris and I want you to know that there are answers to all of your questions.
Here is a debate by Dr. James White, whom Dr. Brown has had on his show before and Dan Barker. It is titled “Was Jesus a Myth?”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WOGeGcjYo
This is part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw1gVAWaRVw&feature=relmfu
This is a much shorter and less detailed version by Dr. William Lane Craig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6AZqOO2FJA
I really recommend this debate by William Lane Craig and Dr. Peter Millican on the topic: “Does God Exist?”, this is, I believe one of Dr. Craig’s best debates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEw8VzzXcjE
I really hope and pray that you do consider some of the things said on this forum and also that you check out these videos. If you do, I’d love to hear your feedback on them. If not, I understand that as well. Once again, I do apologize for my behavior on here.
Love and peace.
Dr. Brown,
Bart Ehrman may still believe that Jesus actually existed but claiming he “utterly rejects” my position is a bit of an exaggeration don’t you think? After all Ehrman said the arguments against the existence of Jesus are “fairly plausible.” That is hardly an utter rejection of a position. Then he admitted that 1) Jesus was never mentioned by any Roman sources; 2) there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed; 3) the Gospels come long after Jesus’ [supposed] death, written by people who never saw the man; 4) there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again; 5) the Gospels portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical. That’s basically the case against the historical Jesus or Jesus of history hoax and Ehrman agrees with all of it. If he still has some reason to think Jesus actually existed I’m sure I don’t know what it is.
I posted a comment on this thread because I heard you make the First Cause Argument on the show. I thought to myself, “Dr. Brown must not know that the First Cause Argument violates the law of mass-energy conservation.” So I posted a refutation of the First Cause Argument so you would be able to tell your listeners why modern cosmologists reject the First Cause Argument. I also showed that philosophers and logicians reject the First Cause or Cosmological Argument because it employs the fallacy of special pleading. It asserts without good reason that everything except God needs a cause. We atheists also have a problem with this argument because theists use it to try to prove God exists. Atheists can ignore the scientific and philosophical problems with your argument and grant it everything it asks. Even if we accept this argument’s flawed logic, all it proves is that there was a first cause. It doesn’t prove that this first cause still exists today, that it is omnipotent or omniscient, or that this first cause has any interest in or awareness of human beings or that it is conscious or anything else. An atheist could accept this entire argument and then posit that the first cause was a purely natural phenomenon.
On the surface the First Cause Argument sounds good especially if you are looking for something that seems substantiate what you are already trying to believe. But this argument has some very obvious fatal flaws that many people can spot right away. Any Christian making this argument is almost certain to face one or more of the objections I mentioned above. Like all theistic arguments the First Cause Argument is fatally flawed and only good enough to convince people who desperately want to believe it anyway.
ron david metcalf
BTW, the 20th C Germanic philosophers probably led me into a hopeless cul de sac even more than Hindu, Buddhist, & Native American thought; and that’s saying something.
Response: What that says is that there are followers and there are leaders. You sound like the former.
Since you’re a scientist, why do you presume so much?
Response: I’m not a scientist. Why do you presume so much?
Existential despair is a leading cause of young adult suicide. Your Brave New World is bogus: I landed in a mental ward for a month for playing Russian roulette. You have zero hope: that’s not courage, it’s stupidity. GOD bless you anyway,
Response: You hope to fly off to a magic happy land when you die and you’re telling ME I have no hope? I hope for things that might actually come true.
Eternal nothingness is nearly as scary as hell; you don’t fool me.
Response: Now this is very interesting. What could be frightening about not existing? What scares you about that exactly? “I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain.
Eric
Yes I do take your surrender as running away from my arguments. I take Dr. Browns statement that he won’t be engaging me here, and Ron’s rambling posts that way too. I don’t need to watch those videos because I know very well what all the arguments for the existence of God and Jesus Christ are and I know how to refute them as I have demonstrated on this blog. See I don’t accept any of the basic premises theistic arguments are founded upon and because of that the theist has no grounds for their argument. If you refute the First Cause the theist has no argument for God. If you don’t accept that Jesus existed based on the lack of evidence for such a person you can’t be taunted with the ‘Lord or liar and lunatic false dichotomy’ made famous by C.S. Lewis. Christians become frustrated very quickly when they can’t get their favorite arguments off the ground; and then very worried when their best arguments are shown to be fatally flawed. Don’t they Eric? You don’t need to apologize for your attitude. Most Christians get very upset when their faith is challenged. Since you like my quotes I’ll leave you with this one: “I certainly had no idea how little faith Christians have in their own faith till I saw how ill their courage and temper can stand any attack on it” – Harriet Martineau
Boris-Yet you’re here. To inform or abuse?
Magnus,
I’m here to show people there is a better way. I’m here to show people that the arguments used to indoctrinate people into the religion of Christianity are fatally flawed and therefore should be rejected. I’m here to show people there is no reason to fear something that clearly does not exist.
Magnus,
I’m not a hater. While our goofy politicians fight over the health care issue Catholic hospitals provide free health care to people who cannot afford to pay for it. Christian charities feed starving children. I’m well aware that Christianity and in fact all religions have been a force for good in the world. However there are two sides to every coin.
I’ve listened to Line of Fire for years. My problem with the show is the same one many other people have: we only get one hour of it.
Boris,
You wrote, “I’ve listened to Line of Fire for years. My problem with the show is the same one many other people have: we only get one hour of it.”
I’m honored! Thanks!
Dear Boris,
Since you do not want to watch any of the videos I suggested, I would like to engage this conversation again with you. Instead of going back and forth with multiple arguments, could we focus in on one argument? I will repeat this argument for you again and then you can tell me what you think is wrong with it.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument has 2 premisses.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
The conclusion therefore follows if the two premisses are true, that therefore the universe had an absolute beginning and cause a finite time ago.
In order to debunk this argument you must prove that either premiss 1, premiss 2 or both are false. Based on our previous conversation you have not done any of the above.
In defense of the premisses I will use both scientific and philosophical arguments. First, we know that the universe could not be eternal for a number of reasons. If the universe were eternal then that would mean that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But, we know from metaphysics that the idea of an infinite number of things is absurd. If I gave you an infinite amount of numbered cards and I were to take away all of the odd numbered cards, how many would you have left? You would still have an infinite amount of coins. So, infinity minus infinity is infinity. But, suppose I were to take away the amount of cards greater than the number 3. Now how many cards would you have left? Only 3. So infinity minus infinity equals 3.
You see, in each case we took away an identical number of cards from an identical number of cards and came up with contradictory results. And you could do this with any number and get different results. Infinity only exists in transfinite arithmetic, but in the real world an infinity number of things simply does not exist. Infinity is just an idea in your mind and not something that exists in reality. So in terms of past events, since these are not ideas but real and finite in number. Therefore the series of past events cannot go back forever, rather, the universe began to exist.
Now in astronomy and astrophysics this has been confirmed as well. Now we have strong evidence in science that the universe is not eternal in the past but had a beginning a finite time ago. In 2003 Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.
Even Stephen Hawking has said: “In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end.”
Once you accept that the universe had a cause we can discuss what characteristics this cause must have in order to create all matter, space, energy and time.
This is a combination of different quotes, debates and lectures I’ve heard in the past (Mostly Dr. William Lane Craig, since he is one of the biggest promoters of this argument.) So, none of it is original with me and regardless, if I’m just repeating what has been said in the past or not this must (emphasis on must) be refuted in order to refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
“I’m here to show people there is a better way.” – Boris
What better way? Why/how is living life without keeping the Grand-Master in mind better? What are you allowed to do that I’m not?
Eric,
Since you do not want to watch any of the videos I suggested, I would like to engage this conversation again with you. Instead of going back and forth with multiple arguments, could we focus in on one argument? I will repeat this argument for you again and then you can tell me what you think is wrong with it.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument has 2 premisses.
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
The conclusion therefore follows if the two premisses are true, that therefore the universe had an absolute beginning and cause a finite time ago.
In order to debunk this argument you must prove that either premiss 1, premiss 2 or both are false. Based on our previous conversation you have not done any of the above.
Response: Did you bother to read my last post directed to Dr. Brown? I proved that the First Cause Argument fails scientifically, philosophically and logically. Then I showed that even if we granted this flawed argument everything it asks it still doesn’t prove there is a God. Atheists could posit that the First Cause is a purely natural phenomenon. I’ve already disproved both of those premises. You have not responded to rebuttals but true to form for a creationist you go right repeating your bogus argument as if no objections have been raised. This is a typical creationist’s debating tactic and I’m very used to it. But I’m a patient man and I’ll be glad to show that the premises of this argument are fatally flawed AGAIN. We know that the universe AS WE NOW KNOW IT in its present form had a beginning but again the mass-energy that comprises the universe has always existed in one form or another. Creationists completely miss the relevant questions which are: 1) What evidence is there that the universe emerged ex-nihilo? 2) What evidence is there that the mass-energy that constitutes the universe always existed? Answer: We have well-confirmed empirical observations that mass-energy cannot appear ex-nihilo. If we adhere to scientific method we are led to one conclusion: Our universe of mass-energy, in one form or another, always existed. The only way the First Cause Argument could be a scientific explanation would be for creationists to detail the precise mechanism or the means by which nothing was transformed by God into something. Absent such an explanation the First Cause Argument ceases to be science and reverts to being religious dogma. Since you cannot prove mass-energy can be or has been created you therefore cannot prove the universe had a beginning. So your second premise fails.
In defense of the premisses I will use both scientific and philosophical arguments. First, we know that the universe could not be eternal for a number of reasons. If the universe were eternal then that would mean that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But, we know from metaphysics that the idea of an infinite number of things is absurd. If I gave you an infinite amount of numbered cards and I were to take away all of the odd numbered cards, how many would you have left? You would still have an infinite amount of coins. So, infinity minus infinity is infinity. But, suppose I were to take away the amount of cards greater than the number 3. Now how many cards would you have left? Only 3. So infinity minus infinity equals 3…. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end.”
Response: Your objection to the possibility of an infinite regress is poorly founded. How many thoughts did God have before creating the universe? Every thought God had must have been caused by another thought preceding it, since your argument claims nothing can be its own cause. But since by your argument an infinite series with no beginning is impossible, God must have had a single thought preceding all others. In other words there must have been a point at which God came into existence. We can then ask the cause of this initial thought, and so on. So by saying nothing can be its own cause you have essentially refuted the argument that God exists.
Once you accept that the universe had a cause we can discuss what characteristics this cause must have in order to create all matter, space, energy and time.
Response: According to the current laws of physics, mass-energy, which began its expansion at the Big Bang, existed prior to the Big Bang. Nothing about Big Bang theory implies or requires that space, time, matter or energy began to exist at that point after previously not existing. Simply stated, the Big Bang was a point at which the universe as we currently observe it was extremely hot and dense. Our current formulations of the laws of physics break down under these conditions so we do not know what came before that. But this does not entail that the universe itself came into existence at that point. It might well have existed in another form prior to the Big Bang. It might even have always existed, so that the Big Bang would not be its beginning but merely the least recent event in its history that we can observe. In this case, the kalam argument’s third premise fails and therefore the entire argument fails.
The inflationary model of the universe suggests that the amount of matter scattered throughout space may be sufficient to eventually stop, through gravitational attraction, the current expansion of the universe. The universe would then begin to collapse upon itself. Eventually all the mass-energy would return to a single point. This is known as the Big Crunch. Scientists speculate that our universe of mass-energy would rebound and form another Big Bang. The universe may well have expanded and contracted many times even millions of times before. I’d like to see some proof that it hasn’t.
This is a combination of different quotes, debates and lectures I’ve heard in the past (Mostly Dr. William Lane Craig, since he is one of the biggest promoters of this argument.) So, none of it is original with me and regardless, if I’m just repeating what has been said in the past or not this must (emphasis on must) be refuted in order to refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Response: This is what you should be asking yourself. Why is William Lane Craig even making this argument? Craig is a theologian NOT a cosmologist so he is not qualified to make claims about cosmology. And why aren’t any cosmologists making this argument? Again, the First Cause Argument violates the law of mass-energy conservation, that’s why. What you are asking me to do is ignore the modern scientific consensus on Big Bang cosmology and accept an argument that is ONLY being made by religious people and not ANY scientists. This is the same group that denies the validity of evolutionary theory and has been fighting advancing science for centuries. When have scientists ever had to revise any of their theories in the face of claims from Bible believers? Never and they never will. You see arguments are not evidence. The fact that you are even making this argument is all the proof anyone needs that you have no evidence that God exists. Think about that for a while.
Now don’t try to keep making this argument until you address each and every one of the objections I have raised to it.
Hello Juan. You said:
What better way? Why/how is living life without keeping the Grand-Master in mind better?
Response: “Fellowship with God means warfare with the world.” – Charles E. Fuller
And: What are you allowed to do that I’m not?
Response: You are.
Boris,
You said: “We know that the universe AS WE NOW KNOW IT in its present form had a beginning but again the mass-energy that comprises the universe has always existed in one form or another.”
The standard model of the Big Bang says that ALL matter and energy, physical space and time all came into being at the initial cosmological singularity which is a boundary for spacetime. As P. C. W. Davies, famous English physicist has said: “If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.” – P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.
To respond to your questions (which by the way, I’m not a young earth creationist) 1) Yes we do have evidence of such. 2) That’s actually a great question. We do not have any evidence that mass-energy eternally existed. To quote the cosmologists John Barrow and Frank Tipler: “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.” John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), page 442.
Please do respond to the philosophical argument. All you said was simply that it’s poorly founded without proving any proof as to why. Have you heard of Hubert’s Hotel? Then you attempt to use the argument, which you claim is poorly founded against me. I will respond though. Now, if I thought that God existed through a backwards series of infinite past events then my argument would apply to the thoughts and life of God as well as it applies to physical events. But the conlusion that I draw is that time had a beginning and that the boundary of time, as it were is the eternal or timeless state of God. So, that God is timeless (without creation) and God is not a point in space and time but rather a boundary of time. So the same applies for God’s thoughts in that they are not necessarily “one at a time” in subsequent addition, on a track by subsequent addition train of thoughts as if God cannot know everything intuitively in a single *now* rather than have progessive one thought after another like we do. There is no problem in thinking that an eternal being has all His knowledge at once, so to speak. So that personhood is not incompatible with timelessness.
Again, refer to the quotes I provited from phyisicists pertaining to the big bang in response to your third response.
The problem with the inflationary model is that chaotic inflation is not only endless, but beginingless every domain in the universe is the product of inflation in another prior domain. So that the singularity is averted and with it as well the question of “what came before?” Or more accurately what caused it? Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin showed that a universe eternally inflating towards the future cannot be geodesically complete in the past. There must be some point in the indefinite past an initial singularity. They write: “A model in which the inflationary phase has no end …naturally leads to this question: Can this model also be extended to the infinite past, avoiding in this way the problem of the initial singularity? … this is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions: such models must necessarily possess initial singularities…. the fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before.” – Borde and A. Vilenkin, “Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity,” Physical Review Letters 72 (1994): 3305, 3307.
As far as your comments about Dr. William Lane Craig would make this argument, well I think it has to do with it being his doctoral dissertation in his PhD in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham. Apart from him being the leading authority on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I did mention these cosmologists (and more in this reply), to repost:
In 2003 Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.
So, to conclude you have still yet to debunk the first premiss of the argument or the second premiss, therefore the conclusion follows that the universe had a cause. If you want to discuss what qualities or characteristics this cause has to have, we can surely do that. But that’s only when you come to terms that the two premisses are valid. You have not responded at all to the philosophical arguments except for trying to use it against God, which is impossible and does not work for the reasons I gave. Second, I’ve quoted scientists in support of what I am saying on a cosmological perspective which you have yet to refute anything they’ve said.
Blessings to you!
I apologize I missed the last part of what Boris had said to me.
“Again, the First Cause Argument violates the law of mass-energy conservation, that’s why. What you are asking me to do is ignore the modern scientific consensus on Big Bang cosmology and accept an argument that is ONLY being made by religious people and not ANY scientists.”
“…For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.” Paul Davies.
What modern scientific consensus were you talking about again? I am certainly not asking you to abandon science, I am the one who is actually quoting scientists and philosophers in support of my position here. Ironically you are the one quoting theologians… (I say that jokingly, but it is true. You are!)
So if anything I’ve demonstrated that I am the one holding the philosophical and scientific position which is not an arrogant claim.
I do want to address what you said about the law of mass-energy conservation. That’s actually an excellent objection. An objection to what though? You’re actually objecting to science here, my friend. You are objecting to the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.
Let me explain.. The theory that all the components of the universe existed eternally is not an objection to the existence of God, but an objection to the big bang theory itself. It would show that the big bang theory of the original of the universe is false because according to that theory all matter and energy, even space and time themselves came into being at the moment of the big bang and they are therefore not eternal and have not always been there in the past. So, if what you’re promoting here is right then all the modern contemporary cosmologists who believe in the big bang theory of the original of the universe would be contradicting the laws of thermodynamics as you would have us believe.
That’s hardly the case though, why? Because in the laws of thermodynamics and in particular the law of the conservation of matter and energy only apply once the universe comes into being. It applies at every moment, at every time and every point in and only *in* the universe. But it does not apply to the origin of the universe itself. And that’s why cosmologists themselves don’t consider that the law of thermodynamics of conservation is violated by the big bang theory of the original of the universe. Again, the law holds in every moment *in* (emphasis) the universe. But it doesn’t say that the universe itself, all matter and energy could have an original beginning at point at some point in the finite past.
Again, examine this quote: “If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.” – P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.
But it doesn’t say that the universe itself, all matter and energy could NOT have an original beginning at point at some point in the finite past
**
I forgot to add “not”.. Sorry about that.
I do see a few other spelling mistakes like “original” is supposed to be “origin”.. I think I need to get some sleep, but I do hope I presented my arguments in a better fashion this time, Boris. I do apologize for my condescending behavior last time.
Please do search more into these matters. Don’t ever think that there is a point where you cannot learn more from scholarly debates. I myself listen to Jews lecture on why Jesus is not the Messiah. I listen to Muslims lecture on why Jesus cannot be God, why the New Testament is corrupted, etc etc, I listen to atheists lecture on why God doesn’t exist. There is nothing to be afraid of if you have the truth. I do this so I can better learn the arguments on the other side, so far it has only strengthened my faith. I do encourage you to look into those debates that I did recommend and there may be a possibly of you learning something from them. As could I or anyone else on this forum.
God is real and He does love you. In fact He loves you so much that He took on flesh and took the just and righteous punishment for your sins. He did that so He could rightfully and justly forgive and show you that He does love you. I want you to know that and maybe consider going to a service this resurrection Sunday. Remember, there’s nothing to lose if you have the truth. But if you don’t have the truth then there is everything to gain.
Peace and love.
Boris:”I’m here to show people there is a better way.”
Tell me about this better way. Im very interested in what youve to say about it. I was certainly not “indoctrinated” into faith and Im trying to find what you think is fatally flawed about following Christ.
If you reject Christs existence then why have you chosen to come to a site where people believe he did? I have faith that Christ was among us and will come again. How could you persuade me from that if its not something I came to through proof?
Eric–GOOD ONE!! “Again, examine this quote: “If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.” – P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.”
Yet Hawkings and the atheists would have us believe that “everything” was created from “nothing”—really, how ridiculous is that?!
The limit of a function cannot meet the function; thus neither 1 nor 0 can be proved by reverse calculations; only infinitely small becoming infinitely large.
GOD Spoke (aka Big Bang) then, becomes a matter of faith: pure math, to which even logic tries to bow but cannot (the Word being more powerful than number) becomes as senseless argument as existence trying to prove its nonexistence.
Boris’ appeal to force would be dismissed as fallacy in any classical debate. Reason has very little to do with his motus operandi.
In Him, Ron M.
Boris the Bully,
Please explain your theory of the
Origin of Potential Energy invalidating First Cause theory so completely; we await your proof,
All Unknowing-One (where infinitely 1 = 0 infinitely by your calculations).
Not really kidding: this is what you claim,
so I’m calling you on it.
In Him, Ron M.
Dear Sheila,
You said: “Yet Hawkings and the atheists would have us believe that “everything” was created from “nothing”—really, how ridiculous is that?!”
Exactly! All the quotes I am providing are either from philosophers or modern cosmologists/physicists. Atheists can only hope that cosmology will just change in the future, but as for now it agrees with the Christians and the theists who say that God created everything out of nothing.
As the English Philosopher of Oxford University, Anthony Kenny urges, “A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence (New York: Schocken Books, 1969), p. 66.
And Cambridge astronomer, Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing! This is because, as you go back in time, you reach a point in time at which, in Hoyle’s words, the universe was “shrunk down to nothing at all. Fred Hoyle, From Stonehenge to Modern Cosmology (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1972), p. 36.
As Dr. Craig rightly concludes: But surely that doesn’t make sense. Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being. And from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because there cannot be an infinite regress of causes–that is to say, there cannot be a series of causes extending backwards in time to infinity past. It must be timeless and therefore changeless, at least without the universe, because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical. But to add to that, It must be Personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effecf, like the universe? If the cause were impersonal set of necessary insufficent conditions then the cause could never exist without the effect. If the cause were timelessly present then the effect would be timelessly present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and for the effect to beging to exist in time, is for the cause to be a Personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time, without any prior determining conditions. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendant cause to the universe but to it’s Personal Creator.
(By the way those are the characteristics/qualities of the cause of the universe I was talking about earlier)
And goes on to say: It’s amazing that the big bang theory supports exactly what Christians believe. That in the beginning God creaoted the heavens and the earth. So, it is up to you to choose which you think is right. That the theist is right or that the universe just popped into being out of nothing?
So to just repeat: These are not religious quotes but modern cosmology, folks. We’re not bucking up against modern science here. Or philosophy for that matter. In fact the Christian has nothing to be ashamed of and can believe Genesis 1:1 confidently! “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Amen!
By the way, Fred Hoyle was the guy who coined the phrase “big bang”.
Mathematically, it is hard to imagine that there is not another Observer species somewhere in the universe (we being exclusive on earth as to these types of abstract concepts) yet the fast-track to Oblivion theory dismisses any sense of a continuum (‘observation’) except obstensibly to the next batch of wanna-be ‘Centurions’ by procreation; and that makes little sense at all.
Whether psychology, chemistry, or math, Science is Religion: but I don’t have to believe in subatomic pre-amoeba as my ancestral heritage, nor Guru Camus et al as to the stark reality of my meaningless existence, nor a precocious post-apocalyptical nothingness as the culmination of everything living. Boris and all his friends together can’t disprove GOD; but all attack and no defense is a losing game; see their strategy.
In Him, Ron M.
Outlines and diagrams can help with general hypotheses; extrapolating specific data is different. Einstein couldn’t find the needle in the haystack concerning gravitation relating to light, though his vision proved that light bent around mass.
Newtonian theory isn’t ‘wrong’; just limited to a finite field like great mountains disappearing behind smaller ones as you descend into a valley. Mass-energy conservation does not disprove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth; but I truly would like more discussion from Boris as to how his worldview has been shaped by the equality of matter/energy.
Light has a calculable speed and travels in a straight line when not affected by mass; but to me this is more a linear Newtonian answer than how gravity can supposedly ‘eat’ even light beams. This has been ‘observed’ but not explained; and ‘holes’ in space could have more reasonable explanations than bizarre portals and parallel universes; though ‘translation’ is recorded in the Bible! Our bodies fear intense heat and gravity; so why should Spirit be unthinkable because it cannot be discerned by our admittedly limited eyesight (are X-rays ‘real’?) The audacity of ‘knowing’ denying Life (eternal) is subjective reasoning at its worst considering that ‘imagination’ is championed in ‘higher’ learning as transcendent. You can gain the world and lose your soul on a bet; this is not Wisdom. Jewish thought without GOD may be intelligent, but so cynical it is abhorrant. Science is wonder-full with purpose; but banter without hope belongs in the Pit.
In Him, Ron M.
Hello people. I will now destroy each and every one of your arguments in the order they were received.
The standard model of the Big Bang says that ALL matter and energy, physical space and time all came into being at the initial cosmological singularity which is a boundary for spacetime.
Response: That is absolutely false. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But, if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place then, for a creator?” – Stephen Hawking. There we have Stephen Hawking describing the standard model of the universe with no boundary.
As P. C. W. Davies, famous English physicist has said: “If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity.
Response: “The equations of cosmology that describe the early universe apply equally for either side of the time axis, so we have no reason to assume that the universe began with the Big Bang.” – Victor Stenger
For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.” – P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.
Response: Eric read the whole book. Nowhere does it say that the singularity did not exist at any point. I defy you to give me that quote and page number because it isn’t in there. What you are doing is known as quote mining, taking things out of context and claiming they then support your position. That is about as intellectually dishonest as you can get.
To respond to your questions (which by the way, I’m not a young earth creationist) 1) Yes we do have evidence of such. 2) That’s actually a great question. We do not have any evidence that mass-energy eternally existed.
Response: Absolutely false. The opposite is true as I have already pointed out and don’t think I haven’t noticed that you did NOT address this point. We have no evidence whatsoever that mass-energy appeared ex-nihilo; and we have well-confirmed empirical observations that mass-energy CANNOT appear ex-nihilo. That is very good evidence that mass-energy has always existed. The best. Observation trumps argumentation EVERY time in the world of science. However in the make-believe world of theology empirical observation takes a back seat to things like supposed divine revelation and arguments riddled with logical fallacies. Since scientists adhere to scientific method they are led to only one conclusion: Our universe of mass-energy, in one form or another, always existed.
To quote the cosmologists John Barrow and Frank Tipler: “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.” John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), page 442.
Response: If nothing existed before the singularity that means that it always existed. The universe as we know it expanded from a singularity. I hate to inform you of this but a singularity is something, which means the universe did not spring from nothing.
Please do respond to the philosophical argument. All you said was simply that it’s poorly founded without proving any proof as to why. Have you heard of Hubert’s Hotel? Then you attempt to use the argument, which you claim is poorly founded against me.
Response: I proved that all cosmologies, secular or theological are forced to contemplate an infinite regress, either in the form of mass-energy or in the form of a god or gods. So the question reverts to whether: (A) this infinite regress harmonizes with the mass-energy conservation laws (as I have been suggesting), or (B) whether a god or gods violated the mass-energy conservation laws through an ex-nihilo Creation event. Craig’s kalam argument is right back where it started having made no forward progress whatever in its God did it argument.
I will respond though. Now, if I thought that God existed through a backwards series of infinite past events then my argument would apply to the thoughts and life of God as well as it applies to physical events. But the conlusion that I draw is that time had a beginning and that the boundary of time, as it were is the eternal or timeless state of God.
Response: As I pointed out your conclusion goes against modern cosmology that says space-time has no boundary. But then all of your religious superstitions fly in the face of modern science.
So, that God is timeless (without creation) and God is not a point in space and time but rather a boundary of time. So the same applies for God’s thoughts in that they are not necessarily “one at a time” in subsequent addition, on a track by subsequent addition train of thoughts as if God cannot know everything intuitively in a single *now* rather than have progessive one thought after another like we do. There is no problem in thinking that an eternal being has all His knowledge at once, so to speak. So that personhood is not incompatible with timelessness.
Response: ROFL! That’s some really entertaining religious psychobabble! You are describing a God I guess but that description does NOT fit the Bible God in any way, shape or form. I shouldn’t have to point out that God supposedly flooded the earth after he SAW how humans were behaving and then he was SORRY that he had made humankind. How do you explain that may I ask? God knew he was going to flood the earth in advance? Drowning is one of the most horrible and painful ways to die there is. If God is omniscient then the fact that a majority of humanity would “forsake Jesus” (and therefore suffer an eternal roasting) – was recognized by God before he chose to create Hell, before he chose to create man, before He chose to give man an eternal soul, before He chose to make the eternal destinies of human souls contingent upon “accepting Jesus,” and before He chose to make a devil to deceive man into forsaking Jesus. Stated otherwise: If God is truly omniscient as Christians believe, then He would have foreseen that His “Master Plan” would be disastrous for humanity. Yet, according to biblical doctrine He crafted His plan of contingent salvation so that billions of individuals, whom He brought into existence, would be consigned to an eternal chamber of torture. He, therefore, would bear direct responsibility for any suffering brought upon humanity. I think if I were all-powerful and could see into the future I could do a little better than that! Ah yes, the mighty Judeo-Christian God, easily defeated by chariots of iron, and whose greatest miracle of the modern day is a light show to some people in a field. He truly is an awesome God.
Again, refer to the quotes I provited from phyisicists pertaining to the big bang in response to your third response.
Response: You took their quotes out of context to make it seem like they support your position when anyone can read the whole text an easily see they do not. Creationists do this all the time because there isn’t any science that supports any of their superstitions.
The problem with the inflationary model is that chaotic inflation is not only endless, but …. the fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before.” – Borde and A. Vilenkin, “Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity,” Physical Review Letters 72 (1994): 3305, 3307.
Response: There are many possibilities including the Big Crunch. We don’t have to prove there was a Big Crunch, only that it is possible to destroy the kalam argument.
As far as your comments about Dr. William Lane Craig would make this argument, well I think it has to do with it being his doctoral dissertation in his PhD in Philosophy at the University of Birmingham. Apart from him being the leading authority on the Kalam Cosmological Argument,
Response: William Lane Craig revealed his guiding principle when he said, “Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on arguments and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa” (Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Revised Edition, page 36). It doesn’t matter what the evidence tells us, William Lane Craig will continue to deny the evidence as he has done all along and instead promote Christianity with fatally flawed arguments and straw man attacks on science and scientific theories. Thankfully many scientists have taken the time to refute Craig’s nonsense and these refutations can be found in just about any secular bookstore and there are plenty of them on the Internet as well. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these refutations of Craig’s theistic arguments. If Craig is promoting the standard model of the Big Bang why do scientists bother to refute his arguments?
I did mention these cosmologists (and more in this reply), to repost:
In 2003 Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.
Response: No dice. You can’t say that someone proved something without showing exactly HOW this was done. Keith Parsons has pointed out, “To say the universe is infinitely old is to say that it had no beginning – not a beginning that was infinitely long ago.”
What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time…. So, to conclude you have still yet to debunk the first premiss of the argument or the second premiss, therefore the conclusion follows that the universe had a cause. If you want to discuss what qualities or characteristics this cause has to have, we can surely do that. But that’s only when you come to terms that the two premisses are valid. You have not responded at all to the philosophical arguments except for trying to use it against God, which is impossible and does not work for the reasons I gave. Second, I’ve quoted scientists in support of what I am saying on a cosmological perspective which you have yet to refute anything they’ve said.
Blessings to you!
Response: You are taking the first premise to be self-evident with no justification other than common, everyday experience. That’s the type of experience that tells us the world is flat. “In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evidence in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Craig has retorted that quantum events are still “caused,” just caused in a non-predetermined manner – what he calls ‘probabilistic causality.’ In effect, Craig is thereby admitting that the ‘cause’ in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous – something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for predetermined creation.” – Victor J. Stenger. Now Eric, how many more times do you have to see this stupid argument reduced to rubble?
I apologize I missed the last part of what Boris had said to me.
“…For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.” Paul Davies.
What modern scientific consensus were you talking about again? I am certainly not asking you to abandon science, I am the one who is actually quoting scientists and philosophers in support of my position here. Ironically you are the one quoting theologians… (I say that jokingly, but it is true. You are!)
Response: What theologians did I quote? FYI William Lane Craig is a theologian. This makes him an expert on nothing because that’s what theology is, the study of nothing. Until theologians prove that at least some of the bogey entities they are supposedly experts on are real they will remain experts on nothing. And that’s what is so ridiculous about trying to use science to prove the existence of magical beings. It isn’t just one bogey entity you believe in there are millions of them, angels, demons, Satan, Jesus, seraphs plus heaven, hell and who knows what else. You actually think that if you could just prove there was a First Cause that we should all just automatically accept the existence of all these ridiculous beings and places for which there exists not a shred of evidence. There just isn’t anything more absurd, insane, or ridiculous than the Christian religion.
So if anything I’ve demonstrated that I am the one holding the philosophical and scientific position which is not an arrogant claim.
Response: That is absolutely false. You could not possibly ever be philosophical when you hold religious beliefs. These two are like fire and water and they just do not mix. Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered. Religion gives answers that may never be questioned, as William Lane Craig has repeatedly said. The view that the universe was created is a religious view, NOT a philosophical view and definitely NOT a scientific view. Why are the majority of scientists, atheists if the First Cause argument is so sound? Because it isn’t.
I do want to address what you said about the law of mass-energy conservation. That’s actually an excellent objection. An objection to what though? You’re actually objecting to science here, my friend. You are objecting to the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.
Let me explain.. The theory that all the components of the universe existed eternally is not an objection to the existence of God, but an objection to the big bang theory itself. It would show that the big bang theory of the original of the universe is false because according to that theory all matter and energy, even space and time themselves came into being at the moment of the big bang and they are therefore not eternal and have not always been there in the past.
Response: “The claim that the universe began with the big bang has no basis in current physical and cosmological knowledge. The observations confirming the big bang do not rule out the possibility of a prior universe. Theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms, by which our current universe appeared from a preexisting one for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so-called quantum fluctuations.” – Victor Stenger. You can read about this in: “Origin of the Universe as Quantum Tunneling Event.” by David Atkatz and Heinz Pagels. The fact that this is another way our universe could have taken its present form completely annihilates the First Cause Argument. AGAIN.
So, if what you’re promoting here is right then all the modern contemporary cosmologists who believe in the big bang theory of the original of the universe would be contradicting the laws of thermodynamics as you would have us believe.
That’s hardly the case though, why? Because in the laws of thermodynamics and in particular the law of the conservation of matter and energy only apply once the universe comes into being. It applies at every moment, at every time and every point in and only *in* the universe. But it does not apply to the origin of the universe itself. And that’s why cosmologists themselves don’t consider that the law of thermodynamics of conservation is violated by the big bang theory of the original of the universe. Again, the law holds in every moment *in* (emphasis) the universe. But it doesn’t say that the universe itself, all matter and energy could have an original beginning at point at some point in the finite past.
Response: You creationists never cease to misrepresent the laws of thermodynamics. The only question is if this is done out of ignorance or dishonesty. The law of conservation of energy requires that energy come from somewhere. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the star of the big bang. However, neither observations nor the theory indicates this to have been the case. The first law allows energy to convert from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed. Remarkably, the total energy of the universe appears to be zero. “In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negatives gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.” – Stephen Hawking “Specifically, within small measurement errors, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from an initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty.” – “On the Total Energy of Open Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universes,” Astrophysical Journal 587 (2003): 483-86. Another nail in the coffin of the First Cause Argumen
Again, examine this quote: “If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.” – P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (New York: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.
…Please do search more into these matters. Don’t ever think that there is a point where you cannot learn more from scholarly debates. I myself listen to Jews lecture on why Jesus is not the Messiah. I listen to Muslims lecture on why Jesus cannot be God, why the New Testament is corrupted, etc etc, I listen to atheists lecture on why God doesn’t exist. There is nothing to be afraid of if you have the truth. I do this so I can better learn the arguments on the other side, so far it has only strengthened my faith. I do encourage you to look into those debates that I did recommend and there may be a possibly of you learning something from them. As could I or anyone else on this forum.
God is real and He does love you. In fact He loves you so much that He took on flesh and took the just and righteous punishment for your sins. He did that so He could rightfully and justly forgive and show you that He does love you.
Response: Let me get this straight. People deserve to be crucified. For what exactly? What you are saying is that first God had to do something, die on the cross, so he could then do something else, forgive sin. So Jesus became a victim of His own judgment when dying on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice – a blood ritual that Jesus offered to Himself so that He could forgive “sin.” The entire biblical plan of salvation is therefore a bogus tautology. A truly benevolent and omnipotent God could simply let bygones be bygones and forgive “sinners” even though they adopted mistaken religious beliefs. If this universal and unconditional forgiveness is impossible for God to bestow, then He is not omnipotent. He is controlled and tossed about by circumstances superseding His authority. If He could forgive all “sinners” unconditionally, but refused, then He is not benevolent.
I want you to know that and maybe consider going to a service this resurrection Sunday. Remember, there’s nothing to lose if you have the truth. But if you don’t have the truth then there is everything to gain.
Response: I don’t have to have the truth to know that you don’t and that goes for your religion as well as the origin of the universe, if it even had one, which I doubt.
Magnus
Tell me about this better way. Im very interested in what youve to say about it. I was certainly not “indoctrinated” into faith and Im trying to find what you think is fatally flawed about following Christ.
Response: Realizing that there are real world consequences for your actions upon yourself and others rather than trying to behave yourself to please a vengeful God will make you a better person. Understanding that being a better person will get you better friends and more of them, make your family love you more, gain you respect in your community and has many other real world advantages will make you a more moral person than someone who is just nice to others to please God.
If you reject Christs existence then why have you chosen to come to a site where people believe he did?
Response: Why do Christians choose to come to sites where people believe he didn’t?
I have faith that Christ was among us and will come again. How could you persuade me from that if its not something I came to through proof?
Response: What is your proof exactly? If it’s a religious experience don’t bother telling me about it. People of all religions have those. I can’t accept proof of your God from you that you would not accept from a member of another religion as proof for their particular deity.
Sheila
Eric–GOOD ONE!!… Yet Hawkings and the atheists would have us believe that “everything” was created from “nothing”—really, how ridiculous is that?!
Response: How do you define nothing? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn’t that make it something? You may claim God is the answer. But why is there a God rather than nothing? Assuming you can even define “nothing” why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give a plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that something is more natural than nothing. In other words it is more likely that something has always existed than it is that there was a point at which nothing existed.
ron david metcalf
The limit of a function cannot meet the function; thus neither 1 nor 0 can be proved by reverse calculations; only infinitely small becoming infinitely large.
GOD Spoke (aka Big Bang) then, becomes a matter of faith: pure math, to which even logic tries to bow but cannot (the Word being more powerful than number) becomes as senseless argument as existence trying to prove its nonexistence.
Boris’ appeal to force would be dismissed as fallacy in any classical debate. Reason has very little to do with his motus operandi.
What’s so hilarious about this is that just a few decades ago Christian apologists were denying that the Big Bang even took place. Funny how they’ve had to shift gears now that Big Bang cosmology is so well established. And now that evolutionary theory has stood the test of time Christians have come up with something even more idiotic than creationism or Intelligent Design Magic called theistic evolution. This is the one where God uses a method of creation that makes it appear that he doesn’t even exist! You ask me why I’m here? For the laughs. “Theologians hardly predicted the Big Bang… Even if a beginning for the universe is a successful prediction of one version of theism, this is still not that impressive. After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The Big Bang becomes strong support for God only with an argument showing that such a beginning requires a creator.”- Taner Edis
ron david metcalf
Boris the Bully,
Please explain your theory of the
Origin of Potential Energy invalidating First Cause theory so completely; we await your proof,
Response: I have proved that there are other possibilities, which invalidates the First Cause argument completely.
All Unknowing-One (where infinitely 1 = 0 infinitely by your calculations).
Not really kidding: this is what you claim,
so I’m calling you on it.
Response: That isn’t at all what I am saying. But since you can’t argue against what I’m really saying you just make something up and argue against that. This is a common logical fallacy committed by creationists all the time. I’m more familiar with the Christian apologist’s bag of tricks than you are.
Eric
Dear Sheila,
You said: “Yet Hawkings and the atheists would have us believe that “everything” was created from “nothing”—really, how ridiculous is that?!”
Exactly! All the quotes I am providing are either from philosophers or modern cosmologists/physicists. Atheists can only hope that cosmology will just change in the future, but as for now it agrees with the Christians and the theists who say that God created everything out of nothing.
Response: Then explain why there are no cosmologists making the first Cause Argument. Why are there so many refutations of the First Cause Argument written by cosmologists? Why are the majority of cosmologists, atheists? Because your claim that cosmology is compatible with Christianity is as untrue as any lie ever told on this planet. You really should be ashamed of yourself, especially now after I have refuted this argument several different ways and shown all of its premises to be fatally flawed.
As the English Philosopher of Oxford University, Anthony Kenny urges, “A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence (New York: Schocken Books, 1969), p. 66.
Response: Not if the materials the universe is made of have always existed they don’t. You have no way of proving that the mass-energy that comprises the universe has not always existed in one form or another. If God could have always existed so could mass-energy.
And Cambridge astronomer, Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing! This is because, as you go back in time, you reach a point in time at which, in Hoyle’s words, the universe was “shrunk down to nothing at all. Fred Hoyle, From Stonehenge to Modern Cosmology (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1972), p. 36.
As Dr. Craig rightly concludes: But surely that doesn’t make sense. Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.
Response: Why because Craig says so? Eric it is very telling that you cannot that recognize Craig’s whiney claim is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. If you Christians could recognize logical fallacies when you hear or see them you wouldn’t be Christians.
And from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, …Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendant cause to the universe but to it’s Personal Creator.
Response: and all of his ridiculous invisible friends and enemies for which there exists not even one tiny shred of evidence!
(By the way those are the characteristics/qualities of the cause of the universe I was talking about earlier)
And goes on to say: It’s amazing that the big bang theory supports exactly what Christians believe. That in the beginning God creaoted the heavens and the earth. So, it is up to you to choose which you think is right. That the theist is right or that the universe just popped into being out of nothing?
Response: Yes the Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth clearly implying that these are two separate places. The earth even has a firmament above it to separate the two. Of course from the Bible’s myopic subjective point of view this what appeared to be true. However, someone standing on Mars or Venus could easily see that the earth is just part of the heavens which of course refutes the very first sentence in the Bible. A few verses later we read that vegetation was on the earth BEFORE the sun and moon even existed showing no knowledge of photosynthesis. Oh yeah science supports what Christians believe. Keep telling yourself that. Tell yourself because no one else believes you especially scientists and you KNOW it.
So to just repeat: These are not religious quotes but modern cosmology, folks. We’re not bucking up against modern science here. Or philosophy for that matter. In fact the Christian has nothing to be ashamed of and can believe Genesis 1:1 confidently! “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Amen!
Response: You have yet to prove there was a beginning.
ron david metcalf
Mathematically, it is hard to imagine that there is not another Observer species somewhere in the universe (we being exclusive on earth as to these types of abstract concepts) yet the fast-track to Oblivion theory dismisses any sense of a continuum (‘observation’) except obstensibly to the next batch of wanna-be ‘Centurions’ by procreation; and that makes little sense at all.
Whether psychology, chemistry, or math, Science is Religion:
Response: “There is obviously an important difference between an establishment [i.e. science] that is open… and one that regards the questioning of its credential as due to wickedness of heart, such as [Cardinal] Newman attributed to those who questioned the infallibility of the Bible. Rational science treats its credit notes as always redeemable on demand, while non-rational authoritarianism regards the demand for the redemption of its paper as a disloyal act of faith.” Morris R. Cohen
but I don’t have to believe in subatomic pre-amoeba as my ancestral heritage, nor Guru Camus et al as to the stark reality of my meaningless existence, nor a precocious post-apocalyptical nothingness as the culmination of everything living. Boris and all his friends together can’t disprove GOD; but all attack and no defense is a losing game; see their strategy.
Response: So what? Christians can’t disprove werewolves either.
Now Eric you have seen the First Cause argument reduced to rubble without any hope of resurrection. I gave many possible alternatives to the religious model of the universe. This completely refutes the First Cause Argument. You would have to prove that mass-energy has not always existed. You would have to prove there was no Big Crunch. You would have to prove the universe did not come from a preexisting universe. You would have to prove the universe is not the result of vacuum fluctuations. How do you intend to do that? You can’t do it by repeating over and over and over and over that the universe must have had a cause, it just MUST have, because ah… well, er….ah Willam Craig says so, wah, wah wah wah…. Until you disprove all of the things I just mentioned the First Cause Argument remains debunked as it always has been anyway. All theistic arguments were refuted as soon as they were made. Don’t believe me? Try another one. I dare you.
This one had to hurt. I doubt you’ve got the nerve to watch anymore of your arguments go up in smoke.
Science can’t answer every question. Questions about meaning and value can’t be answered by science. Is freedom more important than equality? Think about a scientist in a laboratory conducting tests who concludes that there are no objective moral values because the litmus paper turned blue! No, science has limitations. And to say that all facts are scientific facts is a false statement because that statement cannot be validated by any scientific observation or procedure. But I think that our understanding of the big bang theory states that the matter and energy that the universe is made up of is DEFINITELY NOT ETERNAL!
“Perhaps” I’ll join the conversation again “but if” I don’t it’s “more likely” that I’ve encountered an “obstacle” to my “theoretical” plan to do so.
I am, however, ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that I will celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord, Jesus, in the company of others who are also ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that He is Risen INDEED!
🙂
Have all the scientists agreed on the big bang, like what it was, an explosion of some gasious substances or something? Do they know what all the substances were and where they came from?
“A Big Bang” sounds to me like something a red handed thief would make up if he was caught or something. Such stories never seem to add up, like more than one Roman soldier falling asleep at the tomb of Christ and somehow when they woke up, the huge stone had quietly been rolled away during the night and the tomb was empty, or something.
Dear Boris,
Great to hear back from you! 🙂 I noticed you refer to insults and other common defensive mechanisms when you are confronted with facts that you have no answer to. That’s perfectly normal and typical for the atheist who claim to know something about science and when confronted with scientific quotes are backed into a corner. These are pretty overwhelming for you, as I see. And you obviously have no idea who Dr. Paul Davies is to say I am quoting him out of context. You see, when I quote scientists I quote them in the context of their field. Likewise, when I quote philosophers (which Dr. William Lane Craig has a PhD in Philosophy) I do so in their field.
When you talk about science you quote angry atheists authors like Victor Stenger who is a layman when it comes to science and has absolutely no authority.
See, you can’t refute any of the things Stephen Hawkings, Davies, Vilenkin, Guth, Hoyle or any arguments from Dr. Craig. So you say I take them out of context. That just brings a smile to my face, honestly.
Modern Cosmology has reached something of a consensus that the universe had a beginning. That’s why I was surprised you actually quoted Stephen Hawking who has agrees with me on this point! I now understand you are very dishonest in quoting him (or it’s your ignorance, again) and you have never even heard the man speak!
“In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end.” – Stephen Hawking
Are you going to claim that’s a made up quote too? Which by the way none of the quotes I gave you were out of context or non-existent. That’s just your way of making up an excuse because you cannot respond to them, or anything else I’ve said in a meaningful manner. As you’ve so wonderfully demonstrated here.
So far it’s been proven that modern Cosmology and Philosophy agree with the Christians that God created everything out of nothing. The only ones who disagree are those who hate God. The God whom they claim does not exist.
Boris, please be honest with yourself. Stop hiding behind your blind faith that God is not real and realize that science is on the side of the Christians. You can’t hide behind your insults or name-calling any longer. I say to you, as Russian Physicists Alex Vilenkin said: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” – Alex Vilenkin, Many Words in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), p. 176″
Another thing, you act like there is no such thing as a Christian scientist. You think that no scientists make the claim God caused all things? Again this only further shows your ignorance of science and history itself.
The one-time agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments, “Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.” Paul Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster: 1992), p. 16.
Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, calls this the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science (In reference to the fine-tuning of the earth). Robert Jastrow, “The Astronomer and God,” in The Intellectuals Speak Out about God, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), p. 22.
Astronomer Fred Hoyle remarks, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.” Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science (November, 1981), p. 12
Let me guess.. Out of context? I’m a religious nut? I’m crazy? I’m dumb? Sorry, Boris. Your emotions and insults don’t alter the truth.
For anyone interested in seeing Stephen Hawking’s theories being debunked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KqU9N5QJvI
Stenger’e research in elementary partcle physics led to the current standard model. That makes him infinitely more qualified than Willaim Craig the expert on nothing at all. Eric I KNEW you would ignore my objections and keep right on with your relgious propaganda and amd impermissable appeals to authority. You would did not prove that mass-energy has not always existed. You would did not prove there was no Big Crunch. You would did not prove the universe did not come from a preexisting universe. You would did not prove the universe is not the result of vacuum fluctuations. Case closed. You lose. Your argument is dead and your religion is corpse.
Boris,
You strike me, if I had to guess your career, as a lawyer. Why? Because you continuously misrepresent me, you’re amazingly inconsistent in your argumentation, when you’re presented with quotes from Scientists and professional Philosophers you make numerous logical fallacies, like straw manning and ad hominem for example. When you have no answers to things you resort to insults and personal attacks. (Which by the way, consider this an analysis than a personal attack.)And throwing sand up in the air, irrelevant quotes and speeches, etc the list goes on.
And if you’re not a lawyer, you’re probably a politician. I don’t have time for dishonest people like you. You are the reason why so many people are leaving new atheism, because in reality atheists try to mask themselves as if they’re hiding behind science and reason. Then when you’re presented with science and philosophy you run away from all of the arguments. It’s a pity, really.
I had a feeling you were that type of person by the tone of your posts before I even engaged you in the conversation.
Hopefully everyone here can see that Boris rejects the modern consensus of modern Cosmology and he also rejects the Big Bang theory in it’s classical form. He doesn’t understand any of the laws of thermodynamics and erroneously thinks the laws are in effect before the universe.
Boris, you don’t get it do you. The vacuum fluctuations, preexisting universes and etc don’t prove anything. That only shows you, once again are misunderstanding the argument or being deceptive. Those theories only prove it back one step further. Once again:
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” – Alex Vilenkin, Many Words in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), p. 176″
Boris, please stop what you’re doing. It’s very low-class and you have only proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt which is that you do not care about truth.
And to add to the irony, you say I do not answer your objections yet you subjectively choose which parts of my post you want to respond to. Boris, you aren’t fooling anyone here except for yourself.
I have no desire to speak with someone who is clearly not seeking truth. You can carry on here but don’t expect any responses from me. I was hoping I was wrong about you, which is why I had apologized before. But no, I was right. You are exactly that person.
You, sir, are rejecting God. Not because of intellect (as I’ve proven), not because of science (as I’ve proven) and not any other meaningful reason. You are rejecting God because you hate him.
John 3
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.
21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.