A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[chaz wyman]

This is about truth/ Not about God.

I totally agree Chaz,
I have been checking out sites that see the truth as ,
A Static universe fits the observational data better ,
In order to make the bbt fit , they have to adjust too many parameters .
In other words , it doesn't fit .
They just tweek a few things here and there to make it fit .
And as I was going on about ,
the most distant galaxies should be infants cos we can see their 13 billion year old image ,
not the case "the most distant galaxies show insufficient evidence of evolution"
I'm all about truth Chaz .
Do you think the American government/funders of such studies are honest ,
and seeking the truth ,
OR IS IT JUST A BIG PILE OF SPIN ,!!!!!!!!![/quote]

You are full of bollocks.
The steady state universe is about as useful as the geocentric hypothesis.
Get a life!
You are letting your prejudice guide you.
It is so fucking obvious it is embarrassing.

[Godfree]

[
You are full of bollocks.
The steady state universe is about as useful as the geocentric hypothesis.
Get a life!
You are letting your prejudice guide you.
It is so fucking obvious it is embarrassing.[/quote]

Hubble according to what I have learnt ,did not believe the red shift was caused by movement .
His first conclusion was that it was"tired light"
basically the light decays or is eroded over the vastness of space .
This idea is seen today as a better fit for the facts.
So there is another explanation for the red shift .I think that brings it to four.
movement,distance,gas composition , and tired light .
nothing has been proved yet Chaz ,
your prejudice towards me is clouding your ability to absorb the wisdom I am expressing , your loss .

[chaz wyman]

[
You are full of bollocks.
The steady state universe is about as useful as the geocentric hypothesis.
Get a life!
You are letting your prejudice guide you.
It is so fucking obvious it is embarrassing.

Hubble according to what I have learnt ,did not believe the red shift was caused by movement .
His first conclusion was that it was"tired light"
basically the light decays or is eroded over the vastness of space .
This idea is seen today as a better fit for the facts.
So there is another explanation for the red shift .I think that brings it to four.
movement,distance,gas composition , and tired light .
nothing has been proved yet Chaz ,
your prejudice towards me is clouding your ability to absorb the wisdom I am expressing , your loss .[/quote]

Like I said, you are embarrassing.

...Hubble was able to plot a trend line from the 46 galaxies and obtained a value for the Hubble Constant of 500 km/s/Mpc, which is much higher than the currently accepted value due to errors in their distance calibrations. In 1929 Hubble formulated the empirical Redshift Distance Law of galaxies, nowadays termed simply Hubble's law, which, if the redshift is interpreted as a measure of recession speed, is consistent with the solutions of Einstein’s equations of general relativity for a homogeneous, isotropic expanding space...

Things have moved on since 1953

[Godfree]

It's clear you have knowledge on the subject Chaz ,
There are many theories to choose from .
You select the ones that you feel are a better fit .
It's still a gut instinct/preference/personal choice .
To my mind there is no clear winner here .
Humanity is still in the process of working it out .
Getting back to your skepticism .
Which threads did you start,
I havn't noticed any ,???
isn't it true that you sit on the fence and take pot shots at everyone ,???
and isn't that the skeptics role .
A pro-active Atheist like myself ,
starts threads makes claims and endeavours to promote Atheism as the only sane choice .
So I see you are an Atheist , but also a skeptic ,
and I think here you are playing the role of the skeptic .
Start a thread Chaz ,
Brave up having an opinion , a point of view , even an agenda ,
or would you be skeptical about such a bold move,?????

[attofishpi]

I think by bbt you are talking about the big bang theory.

The bbt is an answer to mans finite logical understanding of reality. Enter chaos, the direct opposite to all that is logical and of reason and understand that it exists, perhaps as the opposite universe.

Therein, who needs a bbt?

Is the multiverse beyond mans ability to reason?

When it comes to chaos. All that is ever is now.

[Godfree]

I think by bbt you are talking about the big bang theory.

The bbt is an answer to mans finite logical understanding of reality. Enter chaos, the direct opposite to all that is logical and of reason and understand that it exists, perhaps as the opposite universe.

Therein, who needs a bbt?

Is the multiverse beyond mans ability to reason?

When it comes to chaos. All that is ever is now.

Why "multiverse"
I see one universe , that goes on forever , theres no room for another cos this one takes up all the space there is .
there does seem to be some chaos going on between your ears .
but logic and reason exist throughout the universe , and just because it's over there , and we cant see it , doesn't mean it's like god or the boggy man , we just invent something that sounds right .
Over there , is just the same as over here .
The universe doesn't stop at any point , just because it's so red shifted as to no longer be part of visible light , doesn't mean it doesn't exist .
finite thinking , like religion you mean , ???

[attofishpi]

I see that anything i say is going to be seen as an argument for some kind of divinity by you. I wasnt using the suggestion of a multiverse for any such purpose, merely to point out that in our limited 4 dimensional comprehension of reality we are stifled to conclude that there must me a beginning..a bbt.

Whereas if our minds are allowed to dig beyond what we can comprehend, as suggested by physicists, then other parallel universes co-exist even perhaps where there is one that is the direct opposite to our own. One where chaos rules out any logic, and time has no place...as all is now.

[Godfree]

, merely to point out that in our limited 4 dimensional comprehension of reality we are stifled to conclude that there must me a beginning..a bbt.

No , if you are to say there was a beginning , what triggered the beginning ,a beginning would suggest before then was "nothing", otherwise it's not a beginning but just a continuation .
If the universe is infinite , there was no beginning ,
therefore you are saying the universe is finite,,!!!
nonsensicle jibberish ,
if there was ever nothing , then nothing is all there would ever be .

[keithprosser2]

if there was ever nothing , then nothing is all there would ever be .

It is absurd that something can come from nothing. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it can't be that way. It is absurd that something can be everywhere at once, or not have an actual position or have not have an actual velocity, or that things get heavier just by moving fast.

Or they would have seemed absurd at one time - and not so very long ago. How can anything come from nothing? I don't have the faintest idea. But does that prove something can't come from nothing, or that my mind and imagination have limitations?

The evidence is for a Big Bang. If that means that something came from nothing, then it means there is evidence for something from nothing. We should not be so arrogant as to think our imaginiation places a limit on how the universe 'must be'. As was wisely said, the universe is not ony stranger than we know, but stranger that we can know.

[Godfree]

The evidence is for a Big Bang. If that means that something came from nothing, then it means there is evidence for something from nothing. We should not be so arrogant as to think our imaginiation places a limit on how the universe 'must be'. As was wisely said, the universe is not ony stranger than we know, but stranger that we can know.[/quote]
Its really quiet simple ,
if the something came from the "nothing " ,
then it wasn't nothing but something in disguise ,
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE NOTHING ,
there is no evidence for what came before the bang , so they say,
we don't/can't know .
A bit like god really , we are aloud to think so far , and then it's above and beyond our comprehension .!!!
what a load of rubbish ,
the bang only happened because stuff was doing things before the bang .
logic would suggest , matter existed before the bang ,,!!!!

[chaz wyman]

[quote="Godfree"]The evidence is for a Big Bang. If that means that something came from nothing, then it means there is evidence for something from nothing. We should not be so arrogant as to think our imaginiation places a limit on how the universe 'must be'. As was wisely said, the universe is not ony stranger than we know, but stranger that we can know.[/qute]
Its really quiet simple ,
if the something came from the "nothing " ,
then it wasn't nothing but something in disguise ,
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE NOTHING ,
there is no evidence for what came before the bang , so they say,
we don't/can't know .
A bit like god really , we are aloud to think so far , and then it's above and beyond our comprehension .!!!
what a load of rubbish ,
the bang only happened because stuff was doing things before the bang .
logic would suggest , matter existed before the bang ,,!!!![/qu
te]

If you stopped to think about it, you would realise that the BBT is the perfect atheist answer to existence.

The universe was not the invention or creation of god- IT CAME FROM NOTHING.

[artisticsolution]

The universe was not the invention or creation of god- IT CAME FROM NOTHING.[/color]

See...that's the thing. When you put it that way it seems just as plausible to me to believe that the universe came from nothing as it is to think the universe was created by God. Both seem equally impossible to understand. It's those "math type axioms" I never was quite able to understand. Why should we just assume a place to start at and then use that place to explain everything after? What is the say the premise is correct to begin with? I never did get that type of 'faith'.

[Typist]

logic would suggest , matter existed before the bang ,,!!!!

Logic suggests one of two explanations.

1) Everything came from nothing.

OR:

2) Everything has always existed. Time is infinite, and there was no beginning.

As AS wisely submits, each of these explanations is thoroughly in conflict with logic and common sense.

Thus logic suggests, logic is not currently capable of addressing these questions in any meaningful way.

Thus logic suggests, all your endless adamant typing on the subject of God etc, is nothing more than a form of chronic delusion driven faith based conceptual masterbation.

[chaz wyman]

The universe was not the invention or creation of god- IT CAME FROM NOTHING.[/color]

See...that's the thing. When you put it that way it seems just as plausible to me to believe that the universe came from nothing as it is to think the universe was created by God. Both seem equally impossible to understand. It's those "math type axioms" I never was quite able to understand. Why should we just assume a place to start at and then use that place to explain everything after? What is the say the premise is correct to begin with? I never did get that type of 'faith'.

And you are right to think that because the whole argument is an empty one. We will never know if the Universe had a beginning, as we can never know what existed (if anything) before the BB.
What the science has told us is that the system is automatic and has never needed a guiding hand. But if you add God then you just multiply the problem - where does god come from ad infinitem.

[lancek4]

Atheism is a religion. Dawkins is one of the bishops of the catholic (universal institution of) atheism. There are, in this way, 'protestant' atheists, and pentacostal etc.

I must see that Chaz is being like a cat with a 'yarn' ball in this one.

Is this thread an endeavor in sythetical a priori knowledge?