The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Tassman]

duh. But God was there and he is not nothing. He caused the universe.

On the other hand your claim that nothing comes from nothing has defeated the big bang.

The Big Bang theory is not the last word in cosmology e.g. multiverse theory, if established, would render it merely one component of an infinite universe.

Basically any theory as to what came prior to the big bang is nothing but guess work, not science jimmy. You have even less to go on than you claim theists do.

predictions! Theories of early cosmology make predictions that are either falsified or confirmed. But it takes time, e.g. it took over thirty years to discover all of the Quarks, forty years to see the Cosmic Microwave Background, and over fifty to confirm the so-called god-particle, namely the Higgs Boson. ALL had been predicted. The same applies to multiverse theory.

At least our version makes logical sense and we have revelations that say what happened.

Science has nothing.

Science has a great deal See above!

[Sparko]

Yes, but unless god is energy/matter himself, then even if created, it was created out of nothing. A subtilty you seem to be incapable of understanding. My argument doesn't say that energy/matter came from nothing, which is another feature of my argument that you can't seem to understand.

You statement was "nothing comes from nothing" which means if you start with nothing you get nothing. God is not nothing so you are not starting from nothing. However the universe did start from nothing. No space, no time, no energy, no matter. then Boom. So how did something come from nothing? You were right in "nothing comes from nothing" which is why you defeated your own argument.

I realize you are not the brightest bulb, but I is pretty embarrassing for you that I have to keep explaining your own failure to you.

I agree, it is guess work at this point, except that my argument rests on the emprical evidence we have of existence in that nothing comes from nothing, yours is based on a fairy tale book that says it does.

there you go again. yep, nothing comes from nothing, therefore your idea of a natural cause of the universe from nothing is wrong.

Back to sitting here watching you punch yourself in the face.

[Sparko]

predictions!

ah... science of the gaps. nice

[JimL]

You statement was "nothing comes from nothing" which means if you start with nothing you get nothing. God is not nothing so you are not starting from nothing. However the universe did start from nothing.

Haha, way to contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.

No space, no time, no energy, no matter. then Boom. So how did something come from nothing? You were right in "nothing comes from nothing" which is why you defeated your own argument.

That is not how Cosmic inflation is described Sparko, it doesn't begin from "nothing, energy is pre-existing in that process. And by the way, neither could a singularity be defined as "nothing."

I realize you are not the brightest bulb, but I is pretty embarrassing for you that I have to keep explaining your own failure to you.

Yes, you is pretty embarrassing. You can't seem to grasp the fact that if a non-existing substance suddenly becomes existent, no matter how it happened, it came from out of nothing.

there you go again. yep, nothing comes from nothing, therefore your idea of a natural cause of the universe from nothing is wrong.

Yep, except that that is not my argument. As a matter of fact it is the very argument I have rejected. Try to focus Sparko.

[Sparko]

Haha, way to contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.

are you just trolling or are you that stupid?

That is not how Cosmic inflation is described Sparko, it doesn't begin from "nothing, energy is pre-existing in that process. And by the way, neither could a singularity be defined as "nothing."

I don't have time to give you a basic physics lesson JimL. But yes the singularity IS nothing. No space, No time, No energy, No matter. Inflation happens AFTER the big bang.

Yes, you is pretty embarrassing. You can't seem to grasp the fact that if a non-existing substance suddenly becomes existent, no matter how it happened, it came from out of nothing.

So you are saying you are wrong that something CAN come from nothing? Make up your mind.

Yep, except that that is not my argument. As a matter of fact it is the very argument I have rejected. Try to focus Sparko.

I am not sure you actually know WHAT your argument is. You keep defeating it and then repeating yourself and then denying it was your argument.

This self-inflicted battle with yourself is amusing. I give you that.

Carry on. Round 3! ding!

[Tassman]

ah... science of the gaps. nice

[Doug Shaver]

ah... science of the gaps. nice

Not really. Science of the gaps would be "We don't know, therefore science." Nobody is making that argument.

[Tassman]

I don't have time to give you a basic physics lesson JimL. But yes the singularity IS nothing. No space, No time, No energy, No matter. Inflation happens AFTER the big bang.

So in a way, nothingness is a non-existent state that can truly never be achieved.

[Starlight]

So in a way, nothingness is a non-existent state that can truly never be achieved.

The way I like to think about it is as if the fabric of reality were an ocean and the particles the waves on it. The ocean has lots of whitecaps where particles come briefly into existence and then disappear again. While the major waves in the ocean are the long-lived particles (electrons, protons etc) out of which matter is comprised (of course they way they move on the quantum ocean isn't the same way waves move in an earth ocean). And of course modern quantum microscopes can give quite nifty pictures of what the waves in this ocean look like, e.g. here is a picture of a ring of atoms, and by setting up a standing wave in the center of the ring they have almost created a virtual atom in the center just from the ripples:

[Sparko]

Except you can't test or show what happened before the big bang. And you are just saying it just happened "because SCIENCE!"

science of the gaps. You are filling in the gaps with "it was SCIENCE!!!" when you have no evidence, can't test it, and have nothing but guesses. You are saying "well one day science will fill those gaps so for now I am just putting my blind faith in science!"

[Sparko]

Not really. Science of the gaps would be "We don't know, therefore science." Nobody is making that argument.

pretty much exactly what Tassy is doing.

[Sparko]

So in a way, nothingness is a non-existent state that can truly never be achieved.

You still have to have SPACE, Tassy, for this to happen. and TIME. Neither of which existed prior to the big bang.

[Tassman]

You still have to have SPACE, Tassy, for this to happen. and TIME. Neither of which existed prior to the big bang.

[Doug Shaver]

pretty much exactly what Tassy is doing.

I can't blame you for interpreting him that way.

[Tassman]

I can't blame you for interpreting him that way.