Muslim claims to have "destroyed" atheism with logical proof of gods existence.
218 replies, posted
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;35777061]That's the problem with most people who don't understand evolution, they oversimplify it to the point where they think we were monkeys and then a human was born and then here we are. It makes so much more sense when you look at it over how long it took, seeing how little we changed over time and it just stacked up to where we are now.[/QUOTE]
This is so true. When I was a young kid, I used to think that it didn't make any sense just because someone told me a misinterpretation of it. Not only they didn't brother explain the specifics, they didn't explain how the theory originated.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;35777163]All I'm trying to say is that there is a lot of areas in the Big Bang that may and probably will be improved. And when that happens, the theory that we have now will be partly invalid.[/QUOTE]
The science behind the Big Bang, yeah of course. We already know that both quantum mechanics and general relativity are, on some level, incorrect. But that's really not going to mean anything for the theory itself or for anyone who isn't a physicist.
[QUOTE=Sokrates;35776306]If you listened further, you would understand that he meant reanimate, as in making something [B]live again
[/B]I liked the story at [B]7:28
[/B]He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.[/QUOTE]
Except not really, at all. He basically went off to say that we can create a bloody Frankenstein (although he should have said Frankenstein Monster, but no point to catch his small mistakes).
He is misusing the comparison, though. Not only it's obvious that a palace needs a manual force to construct it, it makes sense that there are resources out there to product such a work, as he had listed. And beside, why would a god need any resources, if he can will it into existence? Even more, the construction is within a logical possibility, making it even more pointless, as the argument's scale is much different. And beside, if it was just a few rocks that looks pretty that were created through natural processes that are known (which is to say, many things), why would one assume the need of an architect?
Hm that's true. I completely forgot that this after all is a religious person trying to understand things outside his field.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;35777186]This is so true. When I was a young kid, I used to think that it didn't make any sense just because someone told me a misinterpretation of it. Not only they didn't brother explain the specifics, they didn't explain how the theory originated.[/QUOTE]
Part of the problem is with teachers (can only speak for my teachers of course.) When I learned about evolution, my teacher explained it terribly. Meanwhile the best science teacher I ever had was teaching me earth science which is simple as shit to understand and just from conversation with her, I would've loved to have her for biology.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35777098]Einstein rejected the notion of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle because he thought it was impossible for the universe to act randomly.
Smart people can be really fucking stupid too, you know.[/QUOTE]
Uh that's not really being fucking stupid that's simply disapproving of the perception of the Universe as an entirely probabilistic system (Quantum mechanics as a whole are based on that) as opposed to a at some point deterministic one. It's precisely the reason why quantum physics don't really combine too well with the theory of relativity. In fact, Einstein's point of view is perfectly valid, that God doesn't play dice. By that he is saying that all knowledge is acquirable at some point in existence, beyond any perception of an actual deity being responsible for all this.
Also, the Big Bang is not in any way some sort of theory of creation. The Big Bang theory studies the initial state of the universe, as in, it's birth, not how it was conceived. Claiming that the existence of any deity and the Big Bang theory or evolution are mutually exclusive is not really true. If you really want to believe in something, and something that no science can dare disprove is uncertainty. Uncertainty exists everywhere, and you can perfectly claim that God is the one responsible for resolving uncertainty and making probabilities into realities, while the rest of the rules were already written.
[QUOTE=Str4fe;35777011]
Where did the dust cloud come from, and why did it not happen an infinity of time before it actually happened? Why now? If the dustcloud had always been there, and time was infinite, why did it happen now and not an infinite amount of years before it did?[/QUOTE]
It makes me cringe when people use this sort of thinking.
If I understand it correctly, time didn't exist before the big bang, so you cant really measure when it happened and why it didn't happen 'some other time'
What if it did happen some other time? It makes no difference, the universe will still exist and we will still be asking the same question of why it didn't happen another time this time aswell.
This line of questioning is irrelevant, because it truly doesn't matter when the universe started, the important thing is that it DID start, at all.
Something like "Why did he run at 5:00 am instead of 5:00 pm?" is a valid question because its refined within an already present time frame, you were present at that time, or instruments were, or measurements were, or other people were, and you can circle it on a calender. You can't go "Why didn't the universe start at 5:00 am instead of 5:00 pm?" because 5:00 am/pm didn't exist and neither did anything else we can use for reference, therefor it wouldn't apply at all, it wasn't created on December, or star-date 58323.6, it was created when it was created, it was created at the 'beginning', thats as specific as you can get.
Its the same reason you say "The universe was created _________ years ago" instead of "The universe was created on _________"
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35777050]you do know that singularities don't follow the common laws of physics as they are known, right
that they are literally holes in the space time continuum, and that the singularity that existed before the big bang was trillions of times more concentrated than even the most powerful black hole in existence today
how exactly do you invoke causality in a plane without causality
how do you invoke time in a plane without time[/QUOTE]
I always saw the Big Bang as the detonation of a hyper-dense singularity that wasn't unlike a black hole, meaning all matter would coalesce into a singularity to be detonated again in a cyclical Big Bang/Big Crunch.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;35777324]Uh that's not really being fucking stupid that's simply disapproving of the perception of the Universe as an entirely probabilistic system (Quantum mechanics as a whole are based on that) as opposed to a at some point deterministic one. It's precisely the reason why quantum physics don't really combine too well with the theory of relativity. In fact, Einstein's point of view is perfectly valid, that God doesn't play dice. By that he is saying that all knowledge is acquirable at some point in existence, beyond any perception of an actual deity being responsible for all this.
Also, the Big Bang is not in any way some sort of theory of creation. The Big Bang theory studies the initial state of the universe, as in, it's birth, not how it was conceived. Claiming that the existence of any deity and the Big Bang theory or evolution are mutually exclusive is not really true. If you really want to believe in something, and something that no science can dare disprove is uncertainty. Uncertainty exists everywhere, and you can perfectly claim that God is the one responsible for resolving uncertainty and making probabilities into realities, while the rest of the rules were already written.[/QUOTE]
Ignoring reality because you prefer things to be different is stupid. I don't care about how applicable you decide his euphimisms can be, his decision to ignore the truth was a stupid one, as it always is when anyone does it. The reason that General Relativity doesn't mesh with Quantum Mechanics is because we have yet to discover a more complete theory that covers both length scales accurately.
Deities aren't mutually exclusive to anything, as the frequent backpedaling by apologists and armchair philosophers has proven on a regular basis. A thing that's defined as immeasurable, inconceivable, and doesn't necessarily have any impact on measurable things can exist alongside anything.
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=zombini;35777395]I always saw the Big Bang as the detonation of a hyper-dense singularity that wasn't unlike a black hole, meaning all matter would coalesce into a singularity to be detonated again in a cyclical Big Bang/Big Crunch.[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid that even if the big bang was just a simple event in which a singularity exploded, that still wouldn't happen because dark matter is causing all visible bodies in the known universe to rapidly accelerate away from each other. Meaning an eternity of heat death is in your future, my friend.
[QUOTE=Sokrates;35776306]
[/B]He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.[/QUOTE]
Then who created God?
And in the words of David Hume: "Which is more likely, the laws of nature have been suspended (in your favor), or that you are under a misapprehension or a delusion?"
[QUOTE=Sokrates;35776306]
He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.[/QUOTE]
That isn't a good point. It's the argument from design for the existence of god and it has been debunked time and time again. Just because something on Earth looks like it has been designed does not entitle you to apply it to the entire universe and assume it also had a designer. If you're going to say "the universe is like a house, it had to have a designer", you have to first demonstrate in what ways the universe like a house. It is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
The guy starts out in this video with a straw man argument about atheism (you do not have to believe a word of science to be an atheist, all it means is that you don't believe there is a god - that's it), misrepresenting two major scientific theories along the way. The big bang did not bring the universe into existence, it brought space and time into existence. The theory of evolution also does not explain how life came into existence.
Basically his point is the old "we don't know how it got here, therefore god did it", which is just an argument from ignorance fallacy.
[QUOTE=Sokrates;35776306]If you listened further, you would understand that he meant reanimate, as in making something [B]live again
[/B]I liked the story at [B]7:28
[/B]He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but please explain where anyone claimed the big-bang had no start? Where? You just like this idiot in the video makes this blind assertion when noone has ever claimed that is the case. Atheists merely claim they have no bloody clue what sprung everything into existence though with Quantum Theory we do understand how from what is considered nothing a universe can actually pop into existence for all intensive purposes.
Anyway about that Houses = Architects bullcrap I did a rebuttal to another Muslim video ages ago involving Dr. Zakir Naiq who also used this argument. It seems to be hugely popular in the Muslim crowd right now for some reason, but anyway here's my refutation to it:
[U][B]The Watchmakers Argument [/B][/U]- This is not a new argument in fact many theists have used it, , Zakir Naik in his example presents a machinery and a 'Creator' of said machinery, and that only the 'Creator' can know the mechanism of the machinery. This is flawed on many levels let me address them:
1) [B]Machine Metaphor[/B] - By stating the universe is a machine and by human knowledge we know machines require creators Zakir already presupposes in such an analogy that a God must exist, but how can he with no evidence just outright state the universe is a machine? We know through evolution how a world and life may form, but this is a natural process it is why we make the distinction between natural and man-made, through evolution a universe does not require any original creator or prime mover behind the wheel. Instead from Science we know that there are billions of planets each with different environments and other variables to consider, the fact that life spawned here is not a design based issue nor is it purely chance, if you have a billion planets ONE simply through pure combination of variables must have life.
2) [B]Cause & Effect[/B] - Through Zakir's logic everything must have a creator, but this leads to one of the greatest problems of a God. Who made God? If we follow Zakir's logic he cannot merely draw a line in the sand wherever he pleases, because it is just as logical to draw a line as the Universe being it's own creator, even though that would be a claim without evidence it would still pertain as much merit as what Zakir is stating.
3) [B]God's Complexity [/B]- The problem is further exacerbated by the fact religion whether it be Islam or Christianity all claim to know the characteristics of said creator, it isn't enough that they will the being into existence through fallacies but to go as far as to claim to know what the being desires, typically it's a remarkably vindictive and cruel purpose (worship or burn in hell). The problem is that through evolution we know that complex entities start with very simple beginnings, we ourselves 3.8 billion years ago were but bacteria, if we follow this natural process it would lead us to conclude that if the universe was created it's originator would be simple (something like the 'Higgs Boson' (God Particle)), but to think that some being with a conscience and a being that is both non-existing and existant is absolutely absurd.
4) [B]Homogenous Concepts[/B] - To claim the universe is 'created' or a 'machine' we must have more then one reference point. What I mean by this is simple, think about how we differ from that which is natural and from that which is created. Take for instance if you saw a statue was ashore on a beach, would you immediately assume it was constructed through natural processes? No! Of course not because we have multiple reference points as evidence, we know only humans make statues because we've seen humans create them, we view them in art galleries or stand them out in public to commemorate an important figure . The universe is a whole different can-of-worms because there are no reference points, we only know of one universe and we have no clue how it was created, we cannot make a distinction between the universe being natural and being a mechanism like we can the statue because we only have this one reference of a universe existing.
The thing about the Big Bang theory is it is used to describe the universe [b]as we know it[/b]. It is not used to try and explain the creation of everything, just the current universe we see. What is there to say the universe never had a beginning or will never have an end? It is entirely possible that everything we see has always been and always will be in some form or another. In that context the entire universe and all things can be described as "a god", a god that does not necessarily have what we would describe as a conscious.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;35778036]Then who created God? And in the words of David Hume: "Which is more likely, the laws of nature have been suspended (in your favor), or that you are under a misapprehension or a delusion?"[/QUOTE]
God is infinite.
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35778810]God is infinite.[/QUOTE]
Says who?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35779026]Says who?[/QUOTE]
The Abrahamic religions in general have this consensus.
[QUOTE=Kayl;35779061]The Abrahamic religions in general have this consensus.[/QUOTE]
And how did they come to this conclusion?
[QUOTE=Sokrates;35776306]He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.[/QUOTE]
I tell people that I believe God created the Big Bang and evolution, because he could and did.
Some people just don't appreciate merging science with religion. Eh, whatever, I suppose.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35779084]And how did they come to this conclusion?[/QUOTE]
Something about being the alpha and the omega, and there's lots of magic.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35779258]Something about being the alpha and the omega, and there's lots of magic.[/QUOTE]
Actually you are wrong. It's just common sense, is it not? An infinite God could only create an infinite universe wouldn't you say?
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35779416]Actually you are wrong. It's just common sense, is it not? An infinite God could only create an infinite universe wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE]
My infinite dad could also make an infinite universe. I asked how you came to the conclusion that god exists and is infinite.
Though I'm guessing your answer is just going to be "because I think so", hm?
[editline]1st May 2012[/editline]
oh and the universe isn't really infinite so yeah
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35779416]Actually you are wrong. It's just common sense, is it not? An infinite God could only create an infinite universe wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE]
Is it really infinite? What's stopping it from being really, really massive but limited?
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35779416]Actually you are wrong. It's just common sense, is it not? An infinite God could only create an infinite universe wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE]
I'm wrong for saying there's alphas and omegas and magic? What?
As another guy posted, it doesn't matter how or why the Universe was created, it matters that there's no evidence that a supernatural deity specifically based from the Qur'an did it.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;35779258]Something about being the alpha and the omega, and there's lots of magic.[/QUOTE]
That should tell you right off the bat that it's probably wrong.
[QUOTE=Sokrates;35776306]He makes many good points about how we say that everything has a creator: Houses = Architects etc.. Yet people still belive that the big-bang had none.[/QUOTE]
How is that a good point?
His understanding of what the big bang is is completely wrong.
The only way to prove a God or Gods that are in an old text is through observable methods, not applying whatever science already exists to that text and going "Hey Look! God Exists!!"
God this is dumb, why dont these guys chill their balls and live their life