patrick.net

This one's easy.

All the theists have to do is show what was or wasn't there before the big bang. We don't know that there was nothing before the big bang.

You'll win a Nobel Prize for sure if you can find that out.

Of course, that's only step one for theists. We'll need to find the super God that created God, and the super duper God that created super God who created God and so on. Since everything has a cause, and a complex being like God has to have a creator.

I watched this video and my head did not explode. I think that a rational answer to the questions, "what do you believe caused the big bang," or "where did the original matter and energy come from that started the big bang," is that I don't have a "belief" regarding those questions.

The questions are interesting, and some scientists and theorists have suggested intriguing answers; but I'm unaware of any theory that has been tested or otherwise gained widespread acceptance. Human effort may someday provide definitive answers to those questions, but in any event, it is hardly worth pointing out that the present lack of a definitive scientific answer does not lead to the conclusion that there must be a god, to say nothing of a Judeo-Christian god-- the latter of which is premised upon a story of creation that was plagiarized from earlier religious beliefs and for which humanity's current scientific knowledge has demonstrated to be wholly inaccurate.

Do you believe in the principle of cause and effect?

Yes, and that's why the supernatural cannot exist. If the supernatural followed cause and effect, then it would be natural not supernatural by definition and subject to all the laws of nature, which are the laws of cause and effect.

How about the Big Bang Theory (the T should be capitalized!)? (Do) You agree with that? (English is soooo hard.)

Yes, the Big Bang Theory is accepted as the explication of how the universe started and evolved.

Who or what caused the Big Bang?

This question might not even be meaningful. In order for A to cause B, A must precede B in time. If space-time is closed but curved at a singularity, then asking what occurred one second before the Big Bang, would be like asking what is located one mile north of the north pole. It is a meaningless question.

However, there are speculations that our universe might be a part of a larger structure called the Multiverse, in which giant sheets of energy called M-branes occasionally collide causing big bangs and subsequent universes. Of course, this simply moves the question to what created the Multiverse. However, the Multiverse structure does not have to have a temporal dimension like our own, and therefore cause and effect in the colloquial sense would not apply to it just as it doesn't to the Big Bang.

Of course, assuming that the universe requires a creator also simply adds one level of indirection to the question which becomes "Who created the creator?". If nothing created the creator, i.e., the creator always existed, then why not simply say the universe itself always existed and that time simply begins with the Big Bang. The creator conjecture explains nothing.

Furthermore, it is far more plausible to believe in non-sentient, non-intelligent stuff as being the a-priori event than a fully formed intelligence. After all, nature has clearly shown us that sentience and intelligence can and does arise from non-sentient, non-living stuff. It is far more difficult, and mathematically improbably to get a highly ordered, self-aware entity out of nothing than a disorganized, non-aware entity out of nothing. The disorganized entity can always self-organize through the laws of nature. Put simply, the god conjecture is far more ridiculous than conjecturing a non-intelligent, non-living, non-sentient creator. And such a creator could simply be the universe itself.

Possible Answer 1: The universe was always there.
Rebuttal: That means the universe defies the law of cause and effect! Doesn't it?

As stated above, cause and effect in the colloquial sense requires the colloquial sense of time. This simply does not apply at singularities including the Big Bang. You might not like it, but the universe does not have to comply with your limited imagination of what reality is like. The universe does same damn weird things when you approach singularities such as inverting time and space. Your mind, a product of evolution, is only wired to understand classical physics, not quantum mechanics and relativity. As such, you cannot rely on intuition when talking about these extreme conditions. You have to do the math, and it's damn complicated math.

Rebuttal Part 2: And that would make the existence of our universe supernatural.

No, it wouldn't. The universe obeys the laws of nature, which makes it by definition a natural phenomenon. The colloquial perception of time is not a law of nature and is in fact only a special limiting case of how time behaves. When an object approaches the speed of light or comes close to a supermassive object, time behaves significantly different from the colloquial perception.

Possible Answer 2: The universe started on it's own. The Big Bang was how the universe created itself.

Rebuttal: How would the universe create itself? That would also break the law of cause and effect.

As stated above, cause and effect require colloquial perception of time and does not applied to a finite, curved time without boundaries. However, if the colloquial perception of time was valid and could be fully extended for all eternity -- which it can't -- then god would still be impossible because god would violate the cause and effect principle.

Furthermore, we could not exist because time would have to stretch forever into the past which means it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present, which means we never would. In fact, by this argument, nothing could exist because all things would have to have a beginning somewhere in time and that time would never be reached because the past extends infinitely far. Put simply, the human experience of time only works in a finite scale and in the absence of extreme phenomena like the Big Bang, black holes, and high velocities.

Again, nature isn't obligated to conform to your petty human ideas of how it should behave. Nature is far more wondrous than you are even allowing yourself to imagine.

Possible Answer 3: Scientists have found particles that might come into existence from literally nothing. So maybe something can come from nothing!

Rebuttal: Doesn't that make god scientifically possible?

Virtual particles don't come "from nothing" but rather from the false vacuum energy of space-time itself, or dark energy. Virtual particles do obey all the laws of physics such as conservation of mass-energy, conservation of charge, conservation of linear and angular momentum. As such virtual particles are clearly natural.

In order for your god to be "scientifically possible", your god too would have to obey all the laws of nature and thus be natural, not supernatural. As such, your god could not be all-powerful. He could not violate any law of nature including conservation of energy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nor could your god be all-knowing since this would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Also, your god would have come into existence after the Big Bang and therefore would not be it's creator. At this point, your "god" doesn't even meet your criteria for god. So why even call him that instead of calling him an alien?

God, only known picture

Possible Answer 4: Other dimensions of time or eternally oscillating universe.
Rebuttal: Can those things be observed scientifically?

The Big Crunch Theory has been discredited since 1998 when it was discovered, to the shock of all physicists, that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. You see, scientists accept the truth for what it is rather than what they want it to be. So if the universe surprises us, we accept reality even when it's not what we expected.

As for other dimensions, the current state of physics has the universe having 10 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. The seven dimensions of space that we are not intuitively aware of are highly curved at the Plank Length level. In any case, none of this has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of a god.

In any case, in principle the number of dimensions can be observed. It is simply a matter of advancing technology and performing the right experiments.

Possible Answer 5: I don't agree with the law of cause and effect.
Rebuttal: You can no longer use that law to argue against god.

I've never used a vague "cause and effect law" to argue against god. I have disproved all possible Standard Monotheistic Gods (SMGs) by showing

1. Omnipotence is self-contradictory.
2. Omnipotence contradicts omniscience.
3. Omnipotence violates the laws of physics.
4. Omniscience violates the laws of physics.

And taking care of SMG eliminates all possible Jewish, Christian, and Islamic gods.

I've also shown that no supernatural god could exist because nothing supernatural could ever interact with the natural, otherwise it would violate the laws of nature. If it didn't violate the laws of nature, i.e. it obeyed them, then it would be natural not supernatural.

Now I haven't disproved the Standard Polytheistic Gods (SPGs), but they are just comic book heroes. Sure they could technically exist, perhaps as powerful aliens like Superman or humans with advance tech like the Green Lantern, but these gods hardly fit the criteria of god that modern or ancient monotheists have.

Of course, that brings us to another question. If a monotheist like a Christian believes in a god, why just one? Why not have a dozen or a thousand creators working together to create the universe? Perhaps they even argue over things like how strong the universal gravity constant should be or whether it's immoral to drown puppies. Also, why assume that a creator is benevolent? Why couldn't Satan be the creator of the universe? Why couldn't the Devil be the all-powerful being pulling all the strings in the universe? It makes no more or less sense than a benevolent god. Monotheists have a hell of a lot of unjustified assumptions in their contradicting beliefs.

Finally, why should the god hypothesis be inherently untestable? Let's face it, Christians don't want people just to believe in a god; they want people to believe in their god, Christ and his sky daddy. Well, supposedly, according to that infallible book the Bible, that god was constantly interacting with humans on a daily basis through the Bronze and Iron Ages. So why the heck doesn't that god just pop in and say hello to humanity once in a while, say every 100 years or so? He's omnipotent after all. Can't he make the time?

Also, if there were such a thing as a human soul and those souls, having lived good lives, went to heaven, then why doesn't god let those souls communicate with the living? It seems awfully dickish. After all, we're here on Earth risking our immortal souls to a pitfire of damnation for all eternity and all it would take to convince us to follow the righteous path would be for old grandma to show up and tell us that heaven and hell are real. And god won't allow that? What a dick!

Come to think of it, if humans actually had souls and they were at risk of eternal damnation, then morality would demand that we kill every new born before it was old enough to sin thereby ensuring that its soul would go to heaven. After all, what's 100 years on Earth compared to all eternality in heaven. And if god is truly good, then he could not fault us for saving all these souls. The fact that we don't kill newborn babies to save their souls is the best testament to the fact that the Christian myth of heaven and hell is complete and utter bullshit.

In conclusion, I've watched this pathetic one-sided video -- and pretty much any video that "talks for the opponent" is going to be pathetic -- and my head did not explode. However, the sheer stupidity of the rebuttals did give me a bit of a headache. Fortunately, the rebuttals were so lame that I did not have to spend any time thinking of why they were wrong. It was so obvious.

My head not spinning here. There being no clear hardproof, the origin of the universe is to me a cloud of probabilities; perhaps the real truth is not even among the theories I consider now. In any case, it has no bearing on my day to day life.

I CAN say with certainty, in my own opinion, the origin of the universe is NOT as depicted in Genesis. It is a nice tale, but reflects the worldview of its pretechnological human authors.

From Wikipedia, Dawkins, God Delusion, Ch 4. At the end of chapter 4, Why there almost certainly is no God, Dawkins sums up his argument and states, "The temptation [to attribute the appearance of a design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable."[20] In addition, chapter 4 asserts that the alternative to the designer hypothesis is not chance, but natural selection.

Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor), and that an omniscient and omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.[21]

Dan8267 - now my head really is SPINNING!

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

Dan8267 - now my head really is SPINNING!

I will, of course, explain any part of my analysis that isn't clear to anyone. I can also suggest some excellent books on physics. Here's a couple.

Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe
The Little Book of the Big Bang: A Cosmic Primer
The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
A Brief History of Time

Great TED talk recently on multiverses:

http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_why_is_our_universe_fine_tuned_for_life.html

Goat farmers a couple of thousands of years ago, did not have all the answers to how the Universe is put together. Nor do we now. But I'm pretty certain that one day we'll have a lot more than we do now, and it won't come from navel-gazing and studying mythology.

Brian Greene is awesome.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

If God exists and is the basis of all justice, he'll chain Dawkins to Ted Haggard and send them to hell together.

I agree, although they'd probably like it. They're both closet homos right ?

I had a lovely conversation with a Baptist Preacher the other day... he quoted the bible and told me that he lives his life by that book, which is the absolute word of God. And that his religion is the only true one.

I explained to him that I don't live my life according to a book that was written by Man, hand-copied by Man and changed over the years by Man. He freaked out that I don't believe the bible is the word of God - I told him that I believe that he believes it is, but that doesn't make it so.

Then I told him I struggle with the concept of a "one true religion," because it would suck to live your entire life believing Baptist is the "true" religion and that by living according to the rules of that religion you'll make it to heaven... only to die & find out that the one "true" religion was Catholic (or Muslim, or Mormon, or Buddhism....) and you screwed up.

I told him that if I'm a good person and try to continue to be a good person, if there's a heaven I'll surely make it there - and if there isn't, oh well - I was a good person.

I think his brain exploded. He turned red and stomped out... turns out his teenage son had told him pretty much the same thing the day before.

...

Where does God come from?

...

How do you people know all of these people?

@ellie,
You are 100% on the mark. Great post.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

marcus says

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

If God exists and is the basis of all justice, he'll chain Dawkins to Ted Haggard and send them to hell together.

I agree, although they'd probably like it. They're both closet homos right ?

I have no idea but they are very public loudmouth fucktards. It would be better if Haggard were the only minty one as that would drive both crazy.

APOCALYPSEFUCK have you read any Mark Leyner? If not, you should. I think you'd enjoy him. A completely random excerpt from his book et tu, babe:

Dear Editors at Swank,
Your article on the sensitive areolas of large-breasted women was excellent. Also, thanks for the recipe for paella valenciana that you published in the October Swank. I'm no gourmet chef, but I made the dish for my girlfriend and after dinner she couldn't keep her prosthetic hands off my veiny nine-inch chorizo.

Vicente says

But I'm pretty certain that one day we'll have a lot more than we do now, and it won't come from navel-gazing and studying mythology.

True. Of course it won't come from poetry, music, philosophy, literature, working out, or eating a healthy diet either.

That video was retarded. CaptainShuddup was either trying to stir up trouble, or is just very ignorant (or in this case is logical, i.e. A | B)

"Hey guys, since we don't yet have a very good understanding of what existed before the big bang, God must exist and the Bible is true"

T says

Not sure what the point of the video was.

The point of the video was to show that arguments against the existence of a god are flawed. The video failed miserably at that point.

T says

Science teaches people to think critically. Religion teaches people to believe what they're told without question.

Really?? Try critically disputing any politicized flavor of the month theory in Science. You'll be put on Witch trial, drawn and quartered and all references of you will be expunged from the chronicles.

There is no debate in Science anymore it's controlled via comity and you better not dispute the letter of the sacred law. Even when Science is wrong, they were right all along.

They are so full of them selves, they ponder alternate universes with a straight face, and ostracize stoners for doing the same.

It used to be funny, now it's just scary.

oliverks1 says

That video was retarded. CaptainShuddup was either trying to stir up trouble, or is just very ignorant (or in this case is logical, i.e. A | B)

Says the "A" Hole with 37 comments. He's either a special prick or just your garden variety. (or in this case is logical, i.e. A | B)

CaptainShuddup says

There is no debate in Science anymore it's controlled via comity and you better not dispute the letter of the sacred law.

You have got to be kidding. Science is still based on the peer review process, which is grueling, but it ensures that the truth, whatever it is, ultimately wins. No other human en devour has come remotely close to the success of the scientific method, not by a long shot.

Well what good is peer review when the peers are selected via a personality contest?

Understand, I don't have a gripe with science just those Zealots that wrongfully wield it to rule with an iron fist. That's how we end up with carbon credits that does dick all for the "IF" factor, while making many people filthy rich, yet once again managing to instil burden and hardship on the poor and middle class at the end of the day. They are ultimately who pays the price for all Liberal pipe dreams.

CaptainShuddup says

Well what good is peer review when the peers are selected via a personality contest?

Atomic Power
Space Flight
Human Genome Mapped
Acceleration of the expansion of the universe proven
Global Positioning Satellites
Carbon Nanotubes
The Internet
History of the universe to 10^-42 seconds after the Big Bang
Genetic engineering and applied evolution through artificial selection
Direct fossil evidence of the color of dinosaur feathers
Self-Replicating Life With Synthetic DNA
The complete lineage of mankind
NDM-1 Superbug Decoded
The creation of embryos with three parents
Proof of extrasolar planets
Proof of sentience in various non-human animals on this planet
Application of human evolution to develop AIDS prevention drug
Discovery of water on the moon
The development of infectious disease prevention and treatment
The development of electrical power and the electric grid
The eradication of smallpox
Computers, television, radio, and fiber optics
Reprogramming adult cells to act as stem cells

And that's just a few of the things that peer reviewed science has brought to you. No other human en devour has come remotely close to the success of the scientific method, not by a long shot. 'Nuff said.

Hey Captain, what did religion give us versus the accomplishments above?

I'll make a list for you:

* Charity that fed/clothed a tiny fraction of the poor
* Opposition to the welfare state that actually clothed and fed a much larger chunk of poor people to a greater degree
* Glorified Procreation
* STDs and overpopulation
* Occasionally impressive Marriage Ceremonies
* Warfare
* Some Good Music
* Genocide
* Emotional Comfort for some poor people
* Justification for why some people are poor (Calvin, some Evangelicals)
* Emotional Comfort for some sick people
* Lavish Funerals

I'll take the toaster oven, the tv, and eat a reheated pizza in a climate controlled living room while watching a show on extrasolar planets. You can have the Genocide and a Lavish Funeral that's accompanied by some Hymns and Excuses for why suffering is noble.

thunderlips11 says

This one's easy.

All the theists have to do is show what was or wasn't there before the big bang. We don't know that there was nothing before the big bang.

Of course, that's only step one for theists. We'll need to find the super God that created God, and the super duper God that created super God who created God and so on. Since everything has a cause, and a complex being like God has to have a creator.

What is "before". Physics did not come up yet with a reasonable concept of Time without Light. There was no "before" before the Big Bang. Stupid. Similarly, there is no need in super God creating God, because God does not exist inside the time.

Dan8267 says

Human Genome Mapped

Tea leaves

Dan8267 says

Global Positioning Satellites

Skynet wonderful!

Dan8267 says

History of the universe to 10^-42 seconds after the Big Bang

I prefer Ren and Stipmy as far as good animation goes.

Dan8267 says

Genetic engineering and applied evolution through artificial selection

Yeah, Monsanto has mutated the crops of farmers that don't license their seeds, rendering those natural crops useless.
This is a very dangerous technology just because we can, sometimes it is best to ask should we.

Dan8267 says

Self-Replicating Life With Synthetic DNA

Why?

Dan8267 says

The complete lineage of mankind

Oh no not another bender list.

Dan8267 says

Computers, television, radio, and fiber optics

Um you said that.

You can belittle the accomplishments of science all you want with merit-less gripes, but it doesn't change the fact that the accomplishments of science far exceeds that of any other human enterprise, whereas the greatest accomplishments of religion have been mass pedophilia, genocide, and slavery.

Dan8267 says

whereas the greatest accomplishments of religion have been mass pedophilia, genocide, and slavery

Dan, always the unemotional unbiased objective logician scientist.

Just kidding, this comment tells you everything you need to know about Dan. Always taking the balanced approach in his analysis.

And yes, you were just off ignore for me to read the last half of that priceless sentence.

Dan is so extreme he makes Dawkins look like an intelligent and balanced well adjusted human being.

marcus says

And yes, you were just off ignore for me to read the last half of that priceless sentence.

For someone who is ignoring me, you sure seem to follow my posts a hell of a lot.

marcus says

Dan is so extreme he makes Dawkins look like an intelligent and balanced well adjusted human being.

1. Dawkins is an intelligent, balanced, and well-adjusted human being. And if you think he's not, then you're retarded.
2. The only thing I'm extreme on is telling the truth. You might as well accuse me of being an extreme Round-Earther because I believe that communication satellites are orbiting our spherical world.

marcus says

Always taking the balanced approach in his analysis.

You don't need to tell both sides of the story when one side is complete bullshit. For example, we don't teach students both astronomy and astrology, both chemistry and alchemy, both calculus and numerology.

Being objective and impartial does not mean striving to make both sides look equally good. An impartial report of the Holocaust is still going to make the Nazis look like assholes. Sometimes the truth is all on one side, and impartial treatment would reveal this. But I don't suppose you'll ever understand that simple fact.

Any dipshit adolescent with an IQ above 70 can easily point to the negatives of religion and logic of being a good person independent of fear of punishment or the possibility of a reward in afterlife.

But, I still say that these kids have obvious conflicts and fears that are driving their biased view if they can't comprehend most of the positives.

In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.

By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0101.html

To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a "stillbirth." My book gives ample attention to Jaki’s work.

Catholic Encyclopedia - there's an unbiased source about the relationship between Church and "Natural Philosophy" in history.

Sure, compared to some Fundy Proddy sects today, the Church isn't backward. Sure, the Jesuits have placed a high value on learning, that's how they got"ins" to the Courts of Chinese Emperors and Malay Kings, their knowledge of astronomy and languages.

Since the French Revolution and the rise of anti-clericalism, the Church has been far more open to science. Before that, it's a whole other kettle of fish. Asserting that he Church has always been the handmaiden of science distorts the other ~1700 years of Church history.

Science comes out of Greco-Roman tradition, not the Judeo-Christian tradition.

T says

I guess it wouldn't be so bad if the Catholic church didn't have history in destroying the progress of science. Not because the theory itself was bad, but because it went against their definition of the Book.

The Catholic church has a mixed history in regards to science. They have actually been relatively pro-science (some of the first universities and all that) except when science goes against dogma. Then is when you get your Galileos.

leoj707 says

The Catholic church has a mixed history in regards to science. They have actually been relatively pro-science (some of the first universities and all that) except when science goes against dogma. Then is when you get your Galileos.

The Catholic Church has always supported any academic thesis that it can use to convince the masses that they should follow the Catholic Church. That's why the Church loved Ptolemy and Aristotle. Anything that increases their power is good, and anything that decreases it is bad. Hardly a benign or noble motive.

What really stinks about the whole monotheism thing is that it's so specific and arbitrary. Why believe in a god or afterlife in the first place when nothing in the universe suggests that they exist? Why believe in only on god? Why believe that the creator of the universe should know about or give a rat's ass about humans? Why believe that the creator of the universe should be benign instead of evil? Monotheism makes dozens of ridiculous assumptions justifying none of them and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

T says

The key difference is that science is based on observed collection of facts and data. Big bang might be possible to prove with science, but it builds up to that, not the other way around.

On the other hand, religion is based on a supernatural being or god, where the whole faith is based on that entity and the faith crumbles if that entity is proven to be false.

Science is proof without certainty -- religion is certainty without proof.

Religion(s) will never be proven false. They will just redefine god(s)/spirits to work with the current level of evidence.

Dan8267 says

Hardly a benign or noble motive.

Yes, and religious or not I would be willing to bet that many scientific advances happen because of motives that are not benign or noble.

Dan8267 says

Why believe in a god or afterlife in the first place when nothing in the universe suggests that they exist? Why believe in only on god? Why believe that the creator of the universe should know about or give a rat's ass about humans?

Dan, you need to don the god helmet.

People have the same experience provided by the god helmet naturally. Just as your touch, sight, taste, hearing and smell provide you with evidence of the world around you there are those believe their god helmet feelings also proved them with evidence of "truth".

leoj707 says

there are those believe their god helmet feelings also proved them with evidence of "truth".

In the same way that crack cocaine is evidence of "truth" like my hand is soooo groovey.

Thanks, but I'll pass. Just because something feels good, doesn't mean it's good for you. Religion is like crack, only more dangerous.