• Daniel Quinones 
    ... As I have pointed out more than once in discussions with atheists....whatever position you take as to the origin of life and the universe you must accept the idea that something must be eternal, be it matter or mind...the only alternative is that "something came from nothing" Science which is really the accumulation of examples based on calculation and observation has not observed "something from nothing" leaving only the first two options. Having established that something must be eternal then one must ask.. is it mind or matter alone? Life and the functional information it contains make a strong case for a creator. Life is a highly organized nano biological machine ...human experience and observation only affirm that such functional complexity sufficient to create an operating system arise only by careful planning and intelligent design. If you want to prove your case provide an example that shows random processes or undirected forces creating anything of functioning complexity
  • Daniel Quinones 
    ‎@Kyle Thanks for the video...I usually don't go web chasing or you tube hunting as I feel this is a cheap way to debate. It takes absolutely no knowledge to do this and no command of the subject to debate this way. I however did want to confirm what I had studied on the subject and so I watched it to the point to where I confirmed my familiarity with the subject. While it is an interesting subject the title of the talk is not accurate and I'm surprised you or someone else hasn't already pointed out this obvious flaw...so I will attempt to do that here. The real issue here is the concept of "nothing" and its definition. I think we can all agree that the universe has 3 elements or manifestations, they are 1) Time 2) Space 3) Matter/Energy. Previous to the big bang all 3 were were part of something called a singularity all compressed into something about the size of a grapefruit...at least that is the theory. Prior to the big bang event there was no passage of time and all of space was confined to the singularity while all matter that ever would exist was locked inside. Since time did not pass inside the singularity it is not yet understood how what followed could have happened but for some as yet unknown reason the big bang occurred which resulted in what we observe now...the universe. I should point out that ANYTHING observable is part of that universe. That is not to say all things are observable. We know that time exists although as a physical quantity we can only observe objects passing through it and not see time itself. We know matter exists because it is dimensionally tangible and we know space exists because otherwise there would be no place for matter to exist. The point of debate is this...can space be considered nothing? As you heard in the lecture space is expanding and as you also heard, matter can actually cause space to bend. These are not the characteristics of something that does not exist. These are characteristics of existance. If we can agree that space actually exists then anything that finds its origin "in" or "from" space cannot and should not be considered to arise from nothing. If space is to be considered a quantum soup from which virtual particles can emerge then it must be as real as the particles themselves.

Views: 55

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is very easy to respond - you can't apply your retarded everyday logic to that part of the physical realm, same as you can't find out the rules of quantum physics or realtivity just by sitting in an armchair, you need to have experimental evidence.

 

You need to have something to base your theories upon. If you have no pre-big bang information, you can't say anything of the pre-big bang time. If you insist you can, you are dishonest.

The assertion of something being eternal is an a priori conclusion and has no empirical basis. This person seems smart enough to be dangerous. And by that, I mean they will use subtle misdirections, subtle fallacies, and dictate the argument in a way to always put you on the defensive. Look for the tricks and remember that even if we knew nothing of the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, or any number of scientific facts or theories, their god hypothesis is still either a failed hypothesis or an untestable one, depending on how they define their god. And if it is untestable, then they are basically arguing Carl Sagan's incorporeal dragon with no way to discern their god from the nonexistent, which has some rather obvious and fundamental flaws. Burden of proof is on them and casting doubt on other areas of knowledge is not evidence for their god.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service