The “Reason Rally” in DC; Thoughts on the Trayvon Martin Killing; and Gay-Bashing Is Out But Christian Bashing Is In

[Download MP3]

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 […]

 

 

160 Comments
  1. By the way, for anyone else who is not keeping up with the conversation. Boris is going to older theories which try to disprove the initial beginning of the universe. All of which have been debunked and falsified by scientists either for mathematical improbabilities or that they are actually pointing to an initial singularity which they are attempting to deny.

    Whenever you are discussing these issues with atheists, never assume knowledge on them. A great example of that would be, Boris had brought up the inflationary universe theory. He obviously doesn’t know who is the founder/originator of that theory nor keeps up with his scientific work or discovery. Alan Guth is the one who came up with the theory. 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.

  2. @Eric
    I’m rubbing my hands together, hoping for the debate between William Lane Craig and Dawkins to finally formulate… for the time being, however, it seems Dawkins might be a little bit afraid of the encounter… he must be trying to figure out a way to win the debate with William Lane Craig before he gets himself into it… Hitchens was “spanked like a naughty school child” by WLC, and I believe Richard Dawkins is afraid the same fate will befall him!

    Will be watching and waiting !

  3. Eric, interested in looking over a ‘perfect’ mathematical algorithm?
    I’ve been waiting to find someone with a bit of wisdom in whom there is some semblance of trust;
    not stealing it in an eyeblink to become the next Bill Gates, that sort of thing.
    Simple, yet workable as to increasing speed.
    In Him, Ron M.

  4. Dear Daniel,

    Me too! One guy whom Dr. Brown has interviewed, John Lennox debated Richard Dawkins. He really took him to school. I would love to see Dawkins debate Craig, if he had the courage to.

    God bless you.

  5. I myself don’t know if mass energy had to exist before anything else. I don’t even know what it is.

    It seems to me that Jesus existed with God in the beginning and it may be that the Father showed him things and Jesus as the Word of God spoke it and it became exactly what God had shown him by the power of the word of God.

    That at least seems likely when I consider that Jesus seems to be the key to everything and that the Bible usually explains things later on, things that were hidden from us, though some of it could have been seen by men of understanding.

  6. Here’s something very interesting concerning an “event horizon” that no one’s ever discussed in the same context before:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbl4EmoH_jg

    Some of you may want to watch “The Fabric of Time” documentary airing on the East coast at 1:30 am. Wee hours, but you could set it up to record on TBN channel. The Particle Physicist featured in the youtube clip is in the documentary too. A second “event horizon” sounds like it could keep all researchers of the Sciences scratching their heads for a very long time to come.

  7. Correction, (94) After reading Matthew 27:65, it appears that the soldiers who guarded the tomb were of the Pharisee’s band and not Roman.

  8. Dear Ron,

    Would love to hear it.

    Sheila,

    Yes. There are so many objections but they are easily refuted as you can see in that video.

  9. I said: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?

    Your response: What is your proof exactly? If it’s a religious experience don’t bother telling me about it.

    I said I had no proof. And if youre not interested in Religious experiences, what do you hope to find here?
    You said:”theology is, the study of nothing.” Should I ask of what kind of experience you are having here. Id hate to hear your missionary to Ethiopians.

  10. Magnus:If you reject Christs existence then why have you chosen to come to a site where people believe he did?

    Boris: Why do Christians choose to come to sites where people believe he didn’t?

    Tell us about the motivation for the gospel of nothingness. Of course the stampede of atheists to the side of the sick and the dying is overwhelming.

  11. And would you properly give credit to the book youre cutting and pasting from. Its been said before. People, do a simple search.

  12. I see this Boris kid is very hungry for attention. 😀

    Boris, your views fail on multiple levels.
    I’m not in the business to exchange treatises on the web in thousands of characters and words (specifically because ALL THIS WAS SAID hundreds and hundreds of times before by people who are better qualified to speak anyways..).
    But, you must recognize that some of your views are plainly childish and it is hard to take them seriously.

    @”Atheism says nothing about morality. It isn’t a religion, idiology or worldview.”
    — Atheism says many things. It is a epistemological position which claims to know something, namely that there is no God. If we are to adhere to such a position we need to have some substantiated argument being advanced from your side. Simply, saying that atheism is “a lack of belief” is false, and any mediocre philosophy student should know that much. To claim that there is no God, you need to advance arguments, which in turn are composed of premises which to succeed need to be factually substantiated and reasonable enough. Furthermore, conclusion needs to follow from these premises.
    I’ve seen more than one debate by PHD philosophers on existence of God, and when your naive cliches are stripped away, there actually very little substance to atheism…

    For example, you say that “My basis for morality is objective because it is based on the value of human life itself. That which harms or destroys life is bad or evil and that which protects or enhances life is termed good. ”
    Well, this definition begs plethora of questions.
    For one, you probably know of your fellow atheist Peter Singer, who loves the word “speciesism” which in turns means favorable bias toward your own species. So, under atheism, I wonder, what is the basis for you to protect life in general, and your specie (aka humans) in particular? Under atheism, there is nothing special or worth protecting or caring or preserving about humans or life in general. Life is a freak accident with no purpose, value or meaning. It will eventually fade into heat death as all the universe anyways. It is simply a matter of time. Who would care or know about you falling for some silly emotion to protect some pathetically insignificant accident of nature. 😉 How is protection of life is something good?
    Furthermore, let’s grant that you have this sentimental emotional illusory feeling that you need to protect life or whatever. Why should I care what you feel? Why should I care to protect any life? I mean you can feel whatever your like about illusory importance of life, but is there anything objectively binding or imposing on me any sense of objective duty to do anything at all? I don’t think under atheism there is anything that is obligatory to me. If I can get away with something – any thing is permissible. This thought is absolutely not novel. Dostoyevskiy wrote about it quite a bit ago. This thought is traced in both “Crime and Punishment” and in “Brothers Karamazov”. If there is no God anything is permissible. I know Dostoyevskiy is credited with the phrase, and I think it makes perfect sense.
    As Dr. William Lane Craig says, existence of God is necessary for morality to be objective; belief in God is not. There are many atheists who lead somewhat moral lives. This noone denies. But to make sense of moral obligations, duties, worth, value, etc nothing except God can be ground for their existence. Moral duties and virtues are rooted in the very character of God, thus that’s why honesty, altruism, courage, mercy, etc are virtues. Because God is. Why under atheism mercy, compassion, courage, or altruism would be “good”. There is no reason whatsoever. As the matter of fact, none of the “things” listed are material. How can non-material virtues “evolve” from material properties by shifting around chemicals is beyond me. You can certainly BELIEVE this is possible, but don’t fancy that such a belief is in any sense more “reasonable” or “scientific” or “intellectual” or anything like that. To believe in some fancy stories that atheism demands, one has to have more unsubstantiated faith than theism ever had.

    This of course, is not the single argument to reconsider atheism and come to senses with reality, but since you mentioned it I thought I should reply. Funny thing, generally speaking people know what is good and bad, but since contemporary cultures fell prey to scientism and naturalism, they don’t regard moral knowledge as knowledge.

    btw, Boris
    @”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.”
    — I hope you know what is generic fallacy.
    Let me illustrate.
    —————————
    Boris, did you earn a Noble Price in physics? No? Then why are you boring us to death with your unqualified quote mining?
    —————————
    If you think Craig is unqualified, what makes you think you are qualified? 😀

    I have to masters in SCIENCE. How many do you have? 😀
    Enough for generic fallacies! 😉 Have a good day/night!

  13. Boris(April 6th, 2012 @ 9:00 am):”I’m here to show people there is a better way.”

    April 6th, 2012 @ 9:32 am :”I’m not a hater.”

    Thoughts to remember while Boris preaches the “better” way. Someone get the Ive Been Recognised Stickre.

  14. Would Boris or anyone at all, please break down exactly what E=mc2 is saying in the simplest of terms? What do each of the symbols mean and how it works? I’m not saying I’m not familiar with Einstein’s famous equation, but just for clarification.

    Thanks.

  15. Sheila,

    E is energy. m is mass. c is speed (strictly speaking in the actual E=mc2 equation it is the speed of light, which is understood at this point to be a constant: 299,792,458 meters per second).

    Basically it demonstrates that the amount of energy in a given thing is proportional to the mass of that thing and what speed it is going.

    For a simple example, if you took a one pound rock and threw it at an anthill at 30 MPH, the energy of the impact would be x.

    e.g. E = 1 x 10^2 = 100

    If you doubled the mass of the rock (two pounds), and kept the speed the same, it would have an impact energy of 2x.

    e.g. E = 2 x 10^2 = 200

    If you doubled the speed, and kept the mass of the rock the same, it would have an impact energy of 4x.

    e.g. E = 1 x 20^2 = 400

    For exactly what this means from a more technical (but still understandable to us non-physicists) you can see here.

  16. And as far as the universe, the only thing I’ve ever heard from cosmologists is that it’s expanding. I’ve never heard anyone question that, but there may be some disputers somewhere. 😉

  17. These kind of things are amazing. I wonder if Jesus had to know all that when he made the world or if he just did what he saw the Father do. Maybe Jesus knew all that but didn’t have to use it. Or maybe he didn’t have to know it, but if he did, it would have been given him of the Father.

  18. I heard from a man who was in heaven and was sent back. (Dean Braxton) As I recall, he said heaven was so big and he couldn’t really describe the size of it very well, but compared it to the earth being the size of a “chad” (remember chads?)
    of paper and heaven then being the size of a great room, the room about 50 of us were in, and it could have held quite a few more.

    He said heaven was big and getting bigger as I recall.

    If the universe we can see and study is a reflection, or a pattern of sorts…(Rom 1:20?)

  19. Thanks Tom.

    I appreciate your taking the time to answer. You explained it well and it was just what I needed to know.

    I’m thinking on the idea of a universe that continues to expand and why cosmologists need the equation to have always existed.

    I’m so thankful that God gave us mysteries to explore and the cognitive and spiritual desire to pursue them. I wish I had more “space/time” to explore them all. I don’t know what will become of it but I know I’ll be reasoning out the points discussed on this thread for a while yet. 🙂

    Thanks again Tom!

  20. It takes a while trying find new material to cut and paste as your own. He knows who Im talking about.

  21. By the way,

    Just to repeat what I said earlier in case anyone missed it: “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.”

    Lord bless you all.

  22. Eric, I live in western NC. I started working on this in late fall 1998, so it is quite a bit more complicated than ‘letting you see it’.
    I have queried some fairly high-profile people without letting them get past step 1. I have worked with a good computer programmer in the past, but we had a hard time ‘learning each other’s language’ (pure equation v. code) though could talk for hours on a theoretical basis. I haven’t found a hardware designer yet to start any prototype; how do you make a nondisclosure agreement concerning an algorithm; is there anyone at a university who is trustworthy without you first having a PhD and being a professor yourself; these are just a few of the problems present.
    So, if you’re anywhere near the area, reply again and we’ll go from there. My finances are exttremely limited, but GOD provides. Waiting on perfect timing is always hard for me.
    In Him, Ron M.

  23. Here’s a perfect example of Eric’s intellectual dishonesty, shallow understanding of the subject and his blatant disregard for the truth:

    Eric
    April 8th, 2012 @ 10:39 am
    For anyone interested in seeing Stephen Hawking’s theories being debunked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KqU9N5QJvI

    I shouldn’t have to point out that while Eric claims to be on the side of modern cosmologists he posts what is supposedly a refutatuion of the modern scientific consensus on Big Bang cosmology! I mean how much more dishonest can you get? I agree with the cosmologists and Eric most certainly DOES NOT. He holds the views of the few religious fanatics who still desperately cling to their failed Fiurst Cause blunder.

    Claiming that everything that begins to exist needs a cause is nothing more than a bald assertion. Eric and his crowd of deceivers have no proof for their assertion. They have no proof that the inverse ever began to exist either. Claiming that the universe just MUST have had a beginning is just another bald assertion – a logical fallacy impermissable in arguments. The main thing to learn here today is that a man of experience is never at the mercy of a man with only arguments. Arguments prove nothing except that the people making them have no evidence. If there were really ANY evience at all for the existence of any God why all the ridiculous arguments? Answer: Because you have NO evidence. This case is closed until we see some evidence.

  24. Boris,

    Big swing and a big miss.

    You pretty much repeated what I said to you, but replaced your name with my name.

    I do hope you checked out that lecture though, seeing as it’s a refutation of a book which the first 1/3 of it is based on philosophical arguments, where Dr. Craig has grounds to refute it. And the physicist who is there debunks the science side.

  25. Boris,

    Your posts are always welcome here — despite their content, which to so many of us, is utterly self-refuting — but you cannot violate our guidelines, which include no attacks against individuals or groups (which means no one can attack you either). So, when you write about “Eric and his crowd of deceivers,” you cross the line.

    How about stepping up a little bit and not forcing us to block you? I trust you’ll comply.

  26. Let’s start over: if everything always existed (in either the form of mass or energy, or the flux in-between) then everything will always exist in the time-space continuum.
    So before we begin, we need to define the term ‘existence’. Does there need to be an Observer for something to exist? If the earth were only populated by cats and dogs (e.g., rather than microbes etc.) would Physics ‘exist’?
    This is important to your argument. Without Thought, can an abstract idea ‘exist’?
    This of course is classic Philosophy that cannot be ‘proven’ either way, because it is only an Idea. But let’s take the classic Science argument for a moment and set Observation aside completely (is this really still Science? We are in a way taking what is seen, heard, etc. and saying it exists even if there is nothing to observe it, which is technically an act of faith; but I won’t belabor the point.)
    So this Thing, this Matter/Energy Conservation, always and forever constantly reinvents itself in equilibrium. But you can’t really say that this is ‘Existence’, because we have not yet defined what that is, which is an Idea that cannot be proven, because it needs an Observer to make a determination (measurement, etc.)
    So, does the Universe Exist? You are making a subjective argument that cannot be proven. You can say, “My theory is…” and that is valid. Again, what you are arguing does not even begin to tackle the issue of what is ‘Life’; so I could say, “The Universe never existed, and never will” and be as ‘right’ as you are; because we haven’t agreed on Step One (defining our terms).
    See the paradox?
    In Him, Ron M.

  27. All that exists, both that which we can see and also that which is invisible became as it was supposed to be in the beginning by God.

    This makes God the first cause of all that is.
    It also makes his purposes in Christ the reason for everything.

    It seems to me that this means that today was made for his glory, not ours. (Isaiah 43:19-21)

  28. Besides the above, Boris,
    By refusing to acknowledge the inverse of a simple equation,
    You insult not only Albert Einstein, but the entire Dr. Michael Brown website.

    Mass (matter) = energy / speed of light squared.

    Now you can say that Einstein was a kook, and the weight of his accepted theory means nothing.
    This is basically saying the same as the Bible is a fraud, and I can’t ‘disprove’ you concerning it.
    Well, since you have made yourself judge, jury, and jailer, there is no dissuading you.
    But this is not any more scientific reasoning than saying man never landed on the moon,
    because you don’t believe it, and it all could have been contrived in a television studio.

    Or, you could ‘see’ the intricacies of what Einstein is saying, and ‘wonder’:
    “The earth had no form, void: darkness was the planar edge of everything;
    But the Spirit of GOD was present.
    Then GOD said, ‘LET THERE BE LIGHT’; and it was so.” (Gen. 1:2,3, paraphrased)
    In Him, Ron M.

  29. Eric it’s one thing to say I swung and missed but I’d like to see you prove it. You haven’t responded directly to ANY of my objections to your arguments. You just ignore them and go right on repeating the claims I have raised objections to. And Dr. Brown can easily say my arguments are self refuting but notice he can’t say exactly how and why they are self refuting because of course they are not. Once again we get smoke and mirrors instead of evidence. Why can’t you people just be brave enough to admit you take your beliefs on faith? I guess faith just isn’t all it’s cracked up to be is it?

    Ron, how come Einstein did not believe in God?

  30. Boris,

    I directly responded to nearly all of your objections, please reread my posts if you think otherwise.

    In fact Einstein did believe in God, as many scientists do in the world today. In fact, even Richard Dawkins admits that Einstein believed in God, he brushes off with a genetic fallacy though.

    Here are some quotes from Einstein;

    “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

    “I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 208)

    And a couple more interesting ones;

    “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.” (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

    “In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views.” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

    And there are plenty more.

  31. Yeah there are plenty of quotes from Albert Einstein. Gee, I wonder why you didn’t mention this one:

    “It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called reigious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it.” – Albert Einstein.

    How about these:

    [Religion is] an attempt to find out where there is no door.”

    “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”

    “[The sense of] a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe… does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image – a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will or a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being.”

    “Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure of the former.”

    Now Eric we have Einstein’s own words denying that he believed in God. Yet you insist that he did. Who should we believe, Einstein or you? Sorry dude, your claims that Einstein believed in God are simply not true. Where is your sense of ethics?

  32. Boris,

    Not only did you not give any reference for your quotes, but you think you can get Einstein to contradict himself.

    Einstein did not believe in a personal God. But he believed in a God-creator. Nothing which you quoted (assuming it’s even accurate) contradicts this. “I don’t believe in a personal God…” key word being “personal” and not “God”. There are different kinds of theism, Boris. And Einstein was indeed a theist.

  33. A. Einstein on Zionism:
    The Jews Among the Nations; Erich Kahler; Frederick Unger Publishing, NY, 1967:
    “With an Appendix: The Jews and the Arabs in Palestine, by Albert Einstein, (Erich Kahler, and Philip K. Hitti).” (from the Princeton Herald, 1944).
    Einstein used his influence in the US to plea for the establishment of Israel, using the Scriptures as a historical basis.
    In Him, Ron M.

  34. Eric,
    Not believing in a personal God makes one a deist, not a theist. But that’s beside the point. Your claim that Einstein believed in some kind of God is no help to your case. If Einstein is such an expert on the subject of God then we should assume he made the right call by not converting to Christianity right? What other conclusion is there? You ignored the most important objections to the First Cause Argument. I’ll tell you what. I’ll repeat 10 of my objections to the First Cause Argument that you have ignored. Now if it’s true that you already responded to these objections as you claimed, then all you have to do is repost the responses you gave. If it isn’t you won’t be able to do that will you? Now I want you to respond to all of the objections below in your own words:

    1.There are events that have no evident cause. 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 for that event. There is no evident cause for the decay of a radioactive nucleus. William Lane Craig has responded to these criticisms of his argument by saying that quantum events are still “caused,” just caused in a non-predetermined manner. Craig calls this “probabilistic causality.” So Craig is admitting that the “cause” in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous and not predetermined. By allowing for probabilistic cause Craig destroys his own case for a predetermined creation.

    2. I 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.

    3. We 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.

    4. “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.

    5. You did not prove that mass-energy has not always existed.
    6. You did not prove there was no Big Crunch.
    7. You did not prove the universe did not come from a preexisting universe.
    8. You did not prove the universe is not the result of vacuum fluctuations.
    9. Claiming that everything that begins to exist needs a cause is a bald assertion.
    10. Claiming that the universe must have had a beginning is just another bald assertion – a logical fallacy impermissible in arguments.
    Bonus question:
    11. Galaxies, stars, planets and moons all form naturally. Why should we believe the place where all this happens did not?

    Ron,
    You also have ignored some of my questions. Let’s focus on one. I want to know what is so frightening to you about not existing after you die. You said it was. Please explain what you mean.

  35. Boris,

    I honestly cannot follow your logic any longer. How do you jump from Einstein being an atheist, to a deist to an expert on everything to do with God etc etc…

    As for your other comments. I’ve responded to everything you’ve said nearly point by point. You are just repeating yourself now, so reread my posts and perhaps you’ll see you’ve made a mistake like how you were wrong about Einstein.

    As far as Victor Stenger goes, please watch his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjOs62PJciI

  36. Eric,
    Anyone can go back through the posts on this thread and easily see that you have completely ignored my objections to your arguments. I knew would duck my challenge again. Had you really responded to my criticisms you could have easily cut and pasted your responses. But there are no responses to cut and paste and YOU KNOW It and so does everyone else. You lost a debate with an athist and looked really foolish doing it. You should be brave enough to admit that and just move on.

  37. And just to put a final nail in the coffin of the First Cause Argument I will point out that empirical observation tells us that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed. Empirical observation also tells us there can be no square circles. Claiming God can created what cannot be created is no different than claiming God can make a square circle. You need to prove mass-energy can and has been created. Good luck with that! Haha

  38. Boris,

    As I said before you’re merely repeating yourself, again and again. To repeat what was said earlier about this point:

    “.. 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.”

    So again, you’re arguing against all of the cosmologists I’ve quoted and you’re arguing against science, namely the big bang theory and you’re not objecting to God’s existence.

    Again to quote the physicist P. C. W. Davies: ““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.”

    “the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe……..” There we have it, Boris is not arguing with me or religious people, but he’s arguing with top, leading cosmologists!

  39. “You lost a debate with an athist and looked really foolish doing it. You should be brave enough to admit that and just move on.”

    Boris, this is truly saddening to see from you.

  40. Boris,
    post-mortum is a useless argument to empirical reasoning. Not suggesting you do so, I’m talking about pulling the trigger which I’ve already explained. Or taking it to the limit, like David Carradine among many others.
    Or writing on a hundred secular blogs where no one could care less about you or anything you say.
    Ever walked down New York City streets totally amd completely alone (barefoot)?
    I wouldn’t dare dare you; but I just thought about the labyrinth of the mind. Those dreams of yours you can’t control; what makes you think they aren’t real warnings?
    In Him, Ron M.

  41. Eric where do you get the nerve to make this claim: “There we have it, Boris is not arguing with me or religious people, but he’s arguing with top, leading cosmologists!”

    Did you or did you not post this:

    April 8th, 2012 @ 10:39 am
    For anyone interested in seeing Stephen Hawking’s theories being debunked:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KqU9N5QJvI

    You posted a supposed refutation of the scientific consensus on Big Bang Cosmology and then claim it’s ME who is disagreeing with science and scientists! You own words prove you wrong Eric.

  42. Boris,

    If you had actually watched the video you would’ve seen it’s about philosophy. There is no scientific consensus on anything Hawking wrote in the first third of his book, because it’s metaphysics and meta-metaphysics! It’s philosophy. I don’t know why you can’t honestly look at things and instead you just post critiques without actually knowing what you’re critiquing.

  43. And attempting to get me to contradict myself says nothing about the points I was making to you. You just completely ignore all my points, which is what you accuse me of. How ironic.

  44. Eric,
    Philosophers cannot tell us a single thing about Big Bang cosmology. Neither can your deludioanl theologians. I’ll stick with the scientists when it comes to science. Now I’ll give you one more cahnce to answer these objections. If you duck them again they stand unrefuted and you have lost ANOTHER debate.

    1.There are events that have no evident cause. 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 for that event. There is no evident cause for the decay of a radioactive nucleus. William Lane Craig has responded to these criticisms of his argument by saying that quantum events are still “caused,” just caused in a non-predetermined manner. Craig calls this “probabilistic causality.” So Craig is admitting that the “cause” in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous and not predetermined. By allowing for probabilistic cause Craig destroys his own case for a predetermined creation.

    2. I 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.

    3. We 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.

    4. “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.

    5. You did not prove that mass-energy has not always existed.
    6. You did not prove there was no Big Crunch.
    7. You did not prove the universe did not come from a preexisting universe.
    8. You did not prove the universe is not the result of vacuum fluctuations.
    9. Claiming that everything that begins to exist needs a cause is a bald assertion.
    10. Claiming that the universe must have had a beginning is just another bald assertion – a logical fallacy impermissible in arguments.
    Bonus question:
    11. Galaxies, stars, planets and moons all form naturally. Why should we believe the place where all this happens did not?

  45. Boris,

    Again you’re speaking out of ignorance. Watch the video and it’s NOT about science. It’s about philosophy, scientists typically have little to no background in philosophy. Which is why Stephen Hawking is being corrected by a a professional Philosopher, because Hawking’s book is NOT only about science. It’s filled with philosophical concepts found in metaphysics and meta-metaphysics.

    I already responded to each of your points, somehow you think that repeating yourself will win an argument. Read through my posts carefully. Don’t assume things like you did with the video but actually read the content of what I said and quoted. I’ll give you another chance to read through my posts, take care.

    God bless you.

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*