There is no God

Spot on!

“They” don’t like it when we say there’s no god because deep down inside I think most of them know this. They’re just unable to face life on its own terms.

Stop teasing Catholics. They aren’t real Christians anyways! “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is No God’”.

but the wise tell it to the world.

…so true. But wisdom can only come as a gift from God.

I think you answered your own question when you pointed out that many make lots of money from this sort of idiocy. They are not going to like criticism if it impacts their bottom line.

Vjack:
Oh, I can understand the peddlers being ticked off by anyone who would remind their targets that the invisible and the non-existent are quite similar in appearance. It’s everyone else that makes me go “WTF?”. It makes no sense to me.

That comment
‘…It’s like they’re children and we want to avoid a tantrum…’
Describes it all.
That is the whole reason our civilisation tip-toes around these weirdos and why we integrate religion into our racism laws.
Try this:
The world is flat. I know it is flat. I have faith that it is flat. If you ask me to look at contrary evidence you are insulting my faith. If you insult my faith I will seek apology through the courts. I may also burn your house down in my righteous anger. For this I know I will be punished but you too will be punished for not being understanding toward my faith.

I would definitely agree that there isn’t such thing as a god.
It baffles me to hear oxymoron ideas in a Christian sense.
“Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form”

I ask how does some super being create?
Science and discovery are slowly proving that there isn’t a god.

I call myself Nihilist, because I don’t believe there is any superior being, and as my brother said to me today, “its funny how nihilism is the only provable idea, in reference to all of the other religions we have.”

I also see certain people committing acts that are indeed terrible, as considered by our society, and I have yet to see anything happen to any of them.
Agree?

According to most cosmologists and physicists, the Universe started from nothing - nothing in its most absolute sense, no space, no matter, no energy, no time. Absolutely nothing - and then suddenly there was something.

Science is presently and for the foreseeable future unable either to understand or explain this. (Though I have heard vague talk of a fluctuation in the nothing!) At the moment of Big Bang, the whole Universe was supposedly concentrated at a point at infinite density.

No-one knows what infinite density, or infinite anything else, means. Neither can scientists explain why you will always measure the speed of light as the same, irrespective of your relative speed - nor why particles change their behaviour if we just look at them. They can´t explain what bending space, to create gravity, really means except in mathematical terms. There are a lot of pretty fundamental things about the Universe that science cannot presently, or for the foreseeable future, either explain or understand.

So, I find it amazing that people can reject the idea that maybe the Universe had a creator and that is why there are so many logically inexplicable things. (Note, I say “creator” and not God. God is a religious concept, with all the attached rituals and bizarre beliefs.)

“So, I find it amazing that people reject the idea that maybe the Universe had a creator…”

I find it amazing that since science doesn’t have a complete explanation, that it is automatically the result of a creator instead. That would be a fallacy of ignorance: “I have no clue, so it must have been a creator.” Even saying that it “may, might, could be, is possible” that it was done by a creator holds no scientific evidence. It requires retreating to the realm of philosophy.

There’s no obligation for anybody to think about why we’re here or what began it all or whatever. But if you decide to do so, whether as an intellectual exercise or because you simply must know, then to allow the concept of a creator in the door is putting a great big boulder on your path. The concept of a god has got to go first or you’re not really looking for answers.

Mr_e: You really should improve the precision of your reading. You will not find the word “automatically” in what I said, but you will find “maybe”. I am not sure what a “fallacy of ignorance” is, though I suppose I could have a guess as to what you meant to say. I think you ought to look up “philosophy” in the dictionary or even on Wikipedia, as talk of “retreating into it” do not seem appropriate.

Bernie Bosma: I think that if you remove the possibility of a creator from your thinking right at the outset, then you´re not really looking for answers - you´re simply seeking to confirm your prejudices. I guess that if I were to ask you - well then, how did the universe come into being from nothing - absolutely nothing - and what caused it to happen, you might reply “I don´t know, but if you believe it was the result of a creator, where did the creator come from?” They are both uncomfortable questions and no-one has the slightest idea as to the answer to either. I find it impossible to believe that a fluctuation in the absolute nothing suddenly produced a universe - and one that has some very strange properties. As for a creator, well that´s pretty implausible as well - there is no plausible sounding answer. However, it´s possible for some people to imagine a creator that exists out of time and did not have a “beginning” or even could create itself., both things that are hard to apply to the early universe.

The attacks on belief in a creator (note – I am not talking about religion) are generally illogical. They start with “There is no evidence for a creator”. I might say “Yes there is – there´s a universe whose existence and complexity no-one can presently explain.” “Well then where did the creator come from……….”. And so on. Everyone who thinks about it has been through all the arguments. We haven´t a clue as to the answers and unless and until some believable convincing evidence comes up one way or the other, the only sensible option is to leave open the possibility of a creator. ( What is the answer to the watch argument, by the way? I´ve read so many attacks on it, but never an explanation as to how the watch just happened all on its own. I´m sure, Mr_e, you could give me the reasons why I too should think it a stupid argument.)

Look at your body Robert. The complex interactions of its workings seem beyond the possibility of chance producing it. Yet we know it developed over time from simple structures. Just as atoms inherently form molecules and molecules inherently form chain structures, your body is almost an inevitable result of the nature of atoms. Thinking that a creator simply made you is what held back true understanding for centuries. It’s doing the same now in our attempt to understand the universe, existence, etc.. Research may eventually uncover a creator, it may also find that we’re just in a dream or any of a hundred thousand other possibles. If you’re interested in answers then it’s better to follow the evidence and not allow at the outset the possibility that the fairies at the bottom of the garden are involved.

Bernie:

It´s late where I am, the other side of the Galaxy, but the connection is good. Your answer is also good viz a viz the watch argument, though I´m not sure that the evolution of living things by a process of natural selection - which I firmly believe in - is comparable to the same thing happening spontaneously with inanimate matter. There is also, of course, the much argued question of what exactly breathed life into the original inanimate matter. In any case, this does not explain the fundamental difficulty of how something arose originally from absolutely nothing and that it did so with no cause.

To be clear, I do not myself (on the whole!) believe in a creator. However, I think that a lot of the objections that one hears to the idea are misconceived. An ant probably regards human beings as supernatural, but we are not - just way ahead of ants. Why should there not be some entity out there that is way way ahead of us? An entity capable of doing things that are unimaginable for us. Maybe this entity did something intended to be quite small scale and it just mushroomed. Evidence? Not a lot - except a Universe whose existence man (and woman)-kind cannot explain. It doesn´t sound likely - but then none of this stuff sounds likely. Do you realise that an atom is over 99.9% empty space?! If you took all the space out of the atoms making up human beings, you could put all 6 billion of us in a container the size of a football. It is all very weird and it is certainly proving very difficult coming up with mundane matter-of-fact explanations.

I was pleased to come across this militant atheist blog and I certainly hope it is active! I have found that militant atheists are usually as ignorant and irrational as militant “believers” - in both cases, under attack, they both usually come back to what amounts to blind faith., in one case in a benevolent old man with a beard and in the other in science. It is, of course, easy to attack believers, with lots of questions that they inevitably have no answers for, and it is similarly easy to attack non-believers, or atheists. Lets try attacking the atheists, for a change.

The Universe has either always existed or it had a beginning. It is generally accepted now that it had a beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago. Then, it either was created or it popped into existence on its own and for no reason.

Consider the case where you got up in the morning and looked out of the window at your lawn and it needs mowing. Whoops! Suddenly there´s a cow on it – one second there is nothing, then there´s a cow. As militant atheists, you won´t be as surprised as most people. You tell your neighbours, the Sprogbottoms, that it just suddenly was there, where previously there was no cow. “Amazing” says Jack Sprogbottom. “Not at all,” you say. “Just a fluctuation”. “Oh, a lot of them about, then?” he asks. “Oh yes. They´re quite common in the Universe “ “Usually produce cows, do they?” asks Jack. “No, usually it´s particles that live for microseconds – but I know of one really good fluctuation. Some time ago now, of course”. “Ah! What was that then – a herd of cows?” “No, no – it was our Universe. “ “Wow!!! Where did this happen?” “Nowhere, because space did not exist” “Ah! What fluctuated, then?” “Nothing, because there was no matter and no energy”. Jack´s looking a bit puzzled. “Did the fluctuation last long, then?” “There is no answer to that, Jack, because there was no time either.” “Well then, what caused this Fluctuation?” Jack´s really looking quite sceptical now. “Nothing at all caused it – it just suddenly happened for no reason, just like my cow.”

Most militant atheists, without knowing anything much about it, are convinced that scientists are discovering more and more about the Universe and that it´s just a matter of time until they know everything significant about it. Inluding how it came to be in the first place. In fact, science is discovering more and more facts – key values and ratios in particular – but they are no closer to answering “why” than 500 years ago. Ask a physicist if he understands why we will always measure the speed of light relative to us the same, irrespective of our speed, - why clocks moving relative to each other will keep different times – why particles change their behaviour if we look at them - how mass “bends” space – how the whole universe was at a point at infinite density etc. etc. etc.. (What is “infinite density”?) I did ask – I contacted 3 physicists and asked them, even though we know these things to be so, if they understood how they could be. Amazingly, all three answered at some length. Two said that no-one understands these things. One said that there is a saying among physicists “keep your head down and just do the maths” and another said that ever since he was a student he has been puzzled as to why there should be anything at all. The third answered only viz a viz the beginning of the Universe, regarding which I had read a paper by him suggesting that the Universe started as a result of a quantum fluctuation (in the nothing) and for no cause. He said that I was asking too much of the Universe in seeking a cause and in a subsequent email, he asked me how you go south when you get to the South Pole. So - science is a long way off answering the “why” to most of the significant questions. Probably, they never will be able to “explain” the Universe, even if mankind lasts another billion years. Or maybe. they will find the answers next week.

I suppose your answers, as militant atheists, are likely to be along the lines of “I don´t know how the Universe came to be – but I know it wasn´t created”, with maybe a reference to fairies at the bottom of the garden or Father Xmas. Rather pathetic, really.

Not being a militant atheist I don’t disagree with too much of what you wrote. I don’t believe science will ever find the answer to our reality and I doubt whether the ‘big bang’ ever happened. Every time I start thinking about existence it always comes to ‘no possible answer’. How big is the universe? If it’s finite then what lies outside of it? If there’s nothing outside of it then…., well, that doesn’t make sense.

I think the answer lies in a completely different direction that science will never find and religion is not interested in finding.

But to posit a creator still adds nothing so why do it. Once you accept the possibility of a creator-entity you cannot avoid pondering its properties and asking why it created all this. From there you will infuse it with all those blackest aspects of yourself, dressed up nicely of course. And from there it’s a short walk to the likes of Christianity and Islam and all that murky, murderous dark-agedness through which our planet is having a few problems getting past already.

Bernie:

The Universe - and life - was either created or just happened and we don´t have enough information at present to rule either of these in or out. Belief in creation would answer some questions, but would raise others. The only significant “other” that I can think of is where did the creator come from, but then that question is common to both possibilties. There is a long list of things that a creator would wholly or partially explain and I cannot see any logic in ruling out the possibility as a matter of dogma.

Of course, I don´t believe in a “religious” creator - neither do I believe there is any purpose to life, nor do I believe in free will or an after-life. You are trying to equate belief in the possibility that the universe was somehow created with belief in a religious creator because it is easy to argue against religion. Why don´t you tell me why you emphatically do not believe in the existence of a creator (please - without talking about a religious creator, on which we probably agree.)? Preferably you should not say as your main argument that there is no evidence for a creator, because there is no evidence for the alternative view either, but you are apparently convinced that it is correct.

KC wrote:It’s everyone else that makes me go “WTF?”. It makes no sense to me.

For many, religion is not a faith (was it ever?). It is a club. There is a significant proportion of individuals who seek to belong to the biggest, and most powerful club.

I think it is a survival mechanism. There is safety in organizations of large numbers. The religion thing may simply reconcile the accompanying cognitive dissonance.

Ben

Robert asked: Why don´t you tell me why you emphatically do not believe in the existence of a creator?

That there is no evidence that suggest the universe was created is sufficient motive to reject the claim of a creator.

Robert wrote: The Universe has either always existed or it had a beginning. It is generally accepted now that it had a beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago. Then, it either was created or it popped into existence on its own and for no reason.

Regarding the universe, there is no evidence that “it either was created or it popped into existence”.

In science, observations represent the facts, and theories represent our best explanations of those facts.

There is no observed creation, and hence no motive to accept the existence of a creator.

However, there are spatial and temporal limits to what we are able to observed. Meaning that our ability to observe phenomena is limited to physical distance and limited to some distant point of the past.

The limit of physical distance results from recession velocity of distant objects due to the expansion of space.

The temporal limits of observation results also results from expansion of space and time. At some point in the past the universe was so dense that no matter of radiation would propagate. What began at the event we call the “Big Bang” is that radiation (light for example) could propagate through space, and 13-14 billions yrs later we can see this moment of our past by looking into the depths of space.

There are no facts regarding events prior the the moment called the “Big Bang”. However, if we were to venture a guess, there is no reason to suppose that myth and miracle existed, in preference to the cause and effect that has consistently persisted since.

- deleted -

I read that “Ben” says there is no evidence that the Universe either popped into existence or was created. There is only one alternative - that it has always existed. There is lots of evidence that the Universe as we know it started a finite time ago, maybe about 13.7 billion years. You will find it hard to locate any respectable physicists or cosmologists who disagree with this. The laws of thermo-dynamics, the fact that the sky is not as bright as day during the night, the fact that there are still stars burning etc etc.. Really, this is no longer in dispute among sensible people. So - the Universe started! Well, are there any alternatives to what I said? It started on its own or it was created. The trouble is that militant atheists always take talk of creation as being to do with religion - and that, of course, is easy to argue against. I am not talking about religious belief, which (unfortunately) I do not have. If “Ben” has an alternative hypothesis, which involves neither creation nor starting on its own, I will be pleased to hear it. Best of luck and make sure you cable Stephen Hawking!

Ben:

Just an after-thought on your comment regarding the persistance of “cause and effect”. Should I assume then that you are able to explain particles changing their behaviour when we look at them? And please please tell me why if we both have perfectly accurate clocks and we synchronise them - then I walk round the block and come back ten minutes later, your clock is now fast. Or is mine slow? Please tell me how this happens. I know, the invariability of the speed of light - but that is not an explanation - it´s just another weird mystery. Also, just to clear things up for me, tell me how matter “bends” space, to create gravity and why does this bent space cause me to fall towards the earth´s centre if I step out of a helicopter. Does the Universe have a boundary? After all, it´s finite - but then you´d better tell me what´s on the other side. I know - there´s no other side! If you really think the Universe works on a simple cause and effect priciple, then you should be able to explain all these logical and mundane things. Plus many more that I could mention. But, of course, you can´t explain - you´re daydreaming at best.

Robert wrote: “There is lots of evidence that the Universe as we know it started [...]”

There is a big difference between “the Universe as we know it started a finite time ago” and “the Universe started [...]“.

What you point out is that the universe is not in a state of equilibrium.

There is *no* evidence of a universal beginning.

If you have a different opinion, please present evidence.

Robert asked: Just an after-thought on your comment regarding the persistance of “cause and effect”. Should I assume then that you are able to explain particles changing their behaviour when we look at them?

hmmm … what does my understanding for how phenomena work have to do with that facts that the phenomena exist?

.. and what does any of that have to do with creation or a creator?

Ben:

Sorry for the rudish tone of my earlier contributions - but I was in a bad mood for other reasons.

Taking your second post first, I think cause and effect sometimes requires more explanation than simply that it exists. If everytime I tickle my girl friend under the chin, a Chinaman living just outside Nanking giggles and scratches himself then you could limit yourself to simply saying this is cause and effect, but it would feel a bit inadequate. What you are saying, in effect, is the Universe came to be (or has always existed) and that is the cause of one of the effects - our being here. Well, yes - but a bit banal isn´t it? (No - come to think of it, you´re not saying that, though you might as well.)I am saying that the Universe is a lot more mysterious than one would expect from your reference to cause and effect. I am not saying that a creator exists, merely that it is presently a possibility. You are saying that a creator does not exist. That must mean one of the following:

1) You know how the Universe came into existence, in which case please inform the authorities
2) You don´t know how it came into existence, but you do know no creator was involved, which would also require a bit of explanation

Number 1) seems quite optimistic and number 2) seems like blind dogma. If you started your comments with “on the balance of probabilities, it seems to me….”, then it´s quite likely we would agree.

Your rationale for not believing in a creator is, I think, that there is, supposedly, no evidence and also that you are unable to separate belief in a possible creator from belief in God. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence for the alternative either - that the Universe just “happened”, which is presumably what you believe - I would say that the Universe itself, with all its mysteries that presently and for the foreseeable future are not explainable, is evidence. A full explanation? No - of course not, - no-one has that.

Regarding your first message, I am disappointed that you noticed those little words “as we know it.” I was referring to the Universe that we presently inhabit, that certainly had a beginning, but leaving open the possibility that there was something before after all. (I hope you are not really asking me to go through the extensive evidence that “our” universe had a beginning?) I´ve noticed recently a considerable increase in scientific flexiblity on the subject, as they have tried for a while now to wrestle with the prima-facie absurdity of the Universe being born at Big Bang as a result of a fluctuation in nothing. I don´t know of any reason why my theory of this week should not be correct - that what we know as the Universe did start at Big Bang, but it was actually an event in a region of a far bigger Universe, which has always existed. I´ve no heavyweight backers yet, so far as I know.

Robert wrote: “If everytime I tickle my girl friend under the chin, a Chinaman living just outside Nanking giggles and scratches himself then you could limit yourself to simply saying this is cause and effect, but it would feel a bit inadequate.”

hmmm, a strange example. When discussing the known, I think, it is proper to restrain ourselves to what is known. It is rather inconsequential to invent examples that do not exist to make a point.

Robert: “I am not saying that a creator exists, merely that it is presently a possibility. You are saying that a creator does not exist.”

No. I am saying there is no evidence of creation. Thus there is no need for a creator. In fact, the creator claim is moot until evidence that the universe was created can be produced.

Robert: “Your rationale for not believing in a creator is, I think, that there is, supposedly, no evidence and also that you are unable to separate belief in a possible creator from belief in God.”

1st part is fairly accurate. The second is speculation, which might be cleared up if you can define what you mean by “God”.

I think that many would refer to the 1st cause as God, while others would refer to God as a specific flavor of creator, the Christian one for example. What is it you mean by god?

Strange, or as books usually limit themselves to saying, “counterintuitive”, happenings require investigation and I´m sure that the things I mention have been investigated - but no explanations are available. When strange phenomena exist which cannot be accounted for, this throws into doubt your cause and effect mundane working of the Universe. It is a lot stranger place than you seem to realise and it could be that you should read up on it. I put the Chinaman example in because quite a lot of militant atheists don´t know much about these things and might find the Chinaman example easier to understand, which, of course, says quite a lot about them and their beliefs.

Actually, supposed lack of evidence for a creator does not mean there is no need for one. The Universe itself is, in any case, evidence – not proof - for a creator until someone comes up with a viable alternative. At the moment, we have an extraordinarily intricate stupendous thing which is continually throwing up fresh puzzles. Maybe it just happened, without cause, one Tuesday afternoon - or in the absense of evidence would you go for Friday morning? There´s nothing one second - nothing at all - then, Bing! There´s a nascent universe! Or maybe it is a lot more complicated than that, involving things that we can´t yet even guess at. I know where I would put my money, between your mundane cause and effect vision, which is at odds with observation, and something else that we don´t yet have an inkling of.

You do not seem to have answered my main point - in fact, you have compounded the error. You say “there is no need for a creator” - something you can only say as and when you know the answers. My mind cannot grasp the stupendous thought processes you must have gone through to deduce that there is no need for a creator, Please please phone the Head of State wherever you happen to live to inform them. (Maybe not if you live in Iran or Saudi Arabia). Also, tell us asap how you know there is no need for a creator. Even Stephen Hawking only goes as far as to say that if they can just solve the last remaining puzzle (he is an optimist) of how the Universe came to be out of nothing, then a creator would not be necessary. It is over 15 years since he said that and I don´t things have progressed very far on that last bit. Call him too!

I think you know perfectly well the distinction I draw between a possible non-divine creator, who/which is unlikely to be interested in us as individuals, and the God of the various religions in the world. I did research the question of scientists´ beliefs and the latest I could find (in the eighties) varied between 25% and 40% of scientists who professed a belief in the religious version of the creator. I think it likely that if the question had been about any creator, as opposed to belief in a religion-inspired creator, the percentages believing would have been higher - perhaps dramatically so. This doesn´t prove anything, other than that quite a substantial proportion of the people one would expect to agree with you do not do so. It also suggests pretty strongly that it is ridiculous to close off the option of the Universe having been created, particularly as there is no evidence for this option to be closed. To turn your argument round on you.

Robert,

All you’re doing is restating the god of the gaps argument which appeals to ignorance and incredulity which is - to put it bluntly - a logical fallacy.

The inability of scientists to explain everything to your satisfaction does not provide support or evidence for “magic man did it” (this is where you appeal to ignorance). Your inability to imagine anything more complicated than “magic man did it” is not evidence that a “magic man did it” (this is where you appeal to incredulity).

The failure of anyone to actually disprove your belief that a “magic man did it” is not evidence that your belief is correct nor is it evidence that your “magic man” exists - which is an argument in and of itself. In fact, I’d go as far to say that you need to prove such a being exists before even attempting to credit it with the creation of anything.

Insisting that we need to disprove your unsupported belief that the “magic man” exists and that “it” created the universe is nothing but a lame attempt to shift the burden of proof. “We” do not have to prove you wrong - you have to prove yourself right.

Peppering your alleged argument with implicit insults towards dissenters (calling us all “militant” atheists and accusing us of having “blind faith” in science for example) is called an Ad hominem which is also a fallacy.

In fact, your whole spiel is full of such fallacies. I suggest that you read up on them.

Robert: “You do not seem to have answered my main point - in fact, you have compounded the error. You say “there is no need for a creator” - something you can only say as and when you know the answers.”

sigh.

I’ll be more specific. To explain the evidence there is no need for a creator.

If your main point is the necessity of a creator, why is such a necessity?

Robert: “Actually, supposed lack of evidence for a creator does not mean there is no need for one. The Universe itself is, in any case, evidence – not proof - for a creator until someone comes up with a viable alternative.”

? … you’re kidding right?

Is this some sort of incredulous debate tactic? … what are you actually doing here?

I’m becoming inclined to conclude that you arrived to instigate a debate for your own amusement.

In any event, KC did a nice job sizing up the situation … and I’d be surprised if those tactics were incidentals.

If everytime I tickle my girl friend under the chin, a Chinaman living just outside Nanking giggles and scratches himself,….. I’d dump my girlfriend. Quantum links with chinamen, probably old ones, are among the things I prefer not to be associate with.
Robert, like a dog with its precious bone you seem unable to let go of the possibility of a creator.
OK, possibly there’s a creator. Equally possible is that you do not exist but are only a part of my dreaming. A thousand other possibles could also be hypothesised. It gets us nowhere to pursue every crazy concept that human mental meanderings can create.
Let it go. Unless you have some clear indication of the presence of a creator-entity stop wasting time with the concept.
PS: I seem to be getting a lot of spelling error indications. The American use of a Z where the rest of the English speaking world uses an S seems to be spreading into all our spell checkers.

Bernie:

I´m glad to zee that you are still alive and kicking and presumably doing it in the same time sone as I´m in. (Have you noticed that Americans also spell some thingz with an s that otherz spell with a z?)

Re the Chinaman, it was remiss of me not to put in what it referred to - something called, I think, action at a distance. It´s a while since I read about it, but as I remember, if two particles interact, then are separated - then…..if you do something to one of them, the other will react instantaneously. In principle, this is true even if by then the particles are on opposite sides of the Universe, though experimental evidence on this is still pending. For reasons which I don´t remember, it seems that Einstein´s universal speed limit is not violated by this instantaneous transfer of information. Just another strange property of the Universe, which it would be nice to have an explanation for.

Regarding the “bizarre” possibilities that you think I should ignore or close, you ought to communicate this to all the physicists and cosmologists round the world who are as interested in the question as I am. A further line of thought that you and Ben and Mr_e, who has presumably gone into hibernation, should consider is whether the laws of the universe - the key ratios and values, the invariable speed of light etc. - came into being before or after BB., or simultaneous with it. This is also quite relevant and it is a question that many cosmologists are also very interested in.
I really don´t think, Bernie that to simply keep repeating “a creator is/was not necessary” cuts it without some evidence for the assertion. There is not enough evidence at the moment to say one way or the other.

I read the rules for this blog and I am surprised not to have been censored out of it. Possibly the creator (of this blog) is hibernating with Mr_e.

I am the owner of the blog Robert and I see no reason to delete you as I’m pretty sure I didn’t say willful ignorance was against the rules.

Now about your latest comment - it doesn’t matter which hole you find in which branch of science. Trying to use those holes to support your unfounded and unsupported belief that the universe was created by a “magic man” is an appeal to ignorance and is a fallacy by default.

Now - who ever said anything about “magic men”? You people do want to take the conversation back all the time to God and Heaven and the men in strange robes chanting things. I wonder why?

I will, though, convey your opinion to Mr Hawking and all the other bright people studying the same subject. The trouble is, that there hasn´t been a single argument, good or bad, in favour of a self-creating Universe. Really! How pathetic - I would have done much better arguing the other side.

Actually, the “magic man” is a reference to this video. Your fallacy laden argument is just a bullshit enriched version of “magic man did it”.

You’re also continuing to implicitly state that since no one has defeated you, you are correct. How many times do I have to tell you that it isn’t our responsiblity to prove you wrong, but your responsibility to prove yourself right?

In case you’re unaware, this means presenting a logical fallacy free argument wherein you give positive evidence that supports your idea that a being of some sort not only exists, but is in fact responsible for the existence of this planet as well as the universe in which it resides.

You’ve not done this. In fact I’d call every comment you’ve made to be “proof by assertion” as all you’re really doing is repeating yourself.

Furthermore, your latest comment is merely an appeal to motive which is yet another fallacy of the personal type.

Robert remarked: “I will, though, convey your opinion to Mr Hawking and all the other bright people studying the same subject. The trouble is, that there hasn´t been a single argument, good or bad, in favour of a self-creating Universe. Really! How pathetic - I would have done much better arguing the other side.”

Really? … If you were so familiar with Hawking, you’d be aware that he makes no claim regarding a need for creation.

The inference is false, the implication a lie.

Pathetic? … yes it is!

Ben – re Hawking: I have no idea what his opinion is as to the existence of a creator, though I suspect it would be similar to mine (which should cheer him up). 70/30 against – but there is no basis at present for ruling it out. In the final chapter of “A Briefer History of Time” he says:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe ………………

Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator and. if so, does He (Hawking´s capital letter) have any other effect on the universe? And who created Him?” It seems fairly clear that he is saying that we don´t presently have a clue as to how the universe came to be – other, that is, than KC and her acolytes, who do know.

I don´t see any significant inconsistency with what I said in previous posts. And I did read this and also the original less brief version of this book. Did you?

KC. The two “arguments” always used against the idea that the possibility of a creator remains open are:

1) There is no evidence. However………there is only one alternative to a creator (I´m not talking about ”God”) and that is that the universe popped into existence, without cause, all on its own. There is no evidence that this could or did happen and I have heard no reasoned (or unreasoned, come to think of it) evidence from any of you people for this hypothesis. You accuse me of having no evidence for a creator (leaving out the universe itself), without your producing any for the only alternative.

2) A creator is not needed. Perhaps the most absurd argument of the lot, because it implies that the person making it knows how the universe came to be and it did not involve a creator.

The inexplicable things I mentioned about reality – moving clocks, the speed of light, the Chinaman etc. are relevant to the argument of another of your followers, that since it came into existence the universe has operated on simple cause and effect. He is, in fact, arguing in favour of Laplace determinism, but that went out of the window some time ago. It isn´t like that at all! The latest candidate to join “the something inexplicable” team is the accelerating expansion of the universe. That was a bomb shell, though this one may be capable of explanation. (Or not.)

I don´t believe in a biblical-type creator either (maybe, 90/10 in this case), but humility obliges me to take into account the opinions of some very credible people who did. Isaac Newton did and he has been described, by credible people (including Mrs Newton), as perhaps the smartest man who´s ever lived. So did Darwin, Farady, Kelvin and James Clerk Maxwell (I don´t know why, but I´m surprised at this last one) and many many other scientists. These people cannot be described as superstitious idiots – or even as loonies What did Eistein think ? (KC.: He´s the man who directed The Battleship Potemkin). He did not believe in a personal god and he said so explicitly – but did he believe in a creator? There does not seem to be a clear answer. He said he admired Spinoza´s God, but I don´t know what this was.

Arguing with militant atheists is pretty much like arguing with militant believers. They usually have little knowledge of relevant facts and simply endlessly repeat dogma, with no thought at all to the logic of their positions. Militant anything tends to be irrational and unpleasant. Lots of loud noise and abuse and not much humour. Ugh!!

Robert,

You are still appealing to ignorance and incredulity as well as presenting a false dichotomy. You also continue to personally attack those who dissent and don’t get me started on your illegitimate appeals to authority. These are not legitimate arguments. They are fallacies. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat them, they are fallacies and will remain fallacies.

To put it bluntly, your “argument” is invalid due to it’s fallaciousness. If you consider this statement to be “unpleasant” so be it. As long as you continue to post this bullshit of yours, I’ll be here to expose it as bullshit. Deal with it or leave.

Robert,

Do you have anything other than mysterious speculations to contribute?

Have you considered looking at the evidence, *before* proposing answers?

Do you understand why a non-expanding universe requires a beginning, but an expanding one does not?

Do you even know what is meant by an expansion of space-time?

Do you realize that the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with creation?

Do you realize that there is no necessity for universal creation, can you explain why?

If you spend some time on Wikipedia, you’ll be off to a good start.

You might also watch some of the lectures on cosmology available to iTunes (for free).

Ben:
I´m afraid you had better do some studying - you´ve got it the wrong way round. It´s the expanding universe that requires the beginning and the non-expanding, “steady-state”, one that does not. That is why Einstein made what he afterwards described as the biggest mistake of his life. His Relativity implied an expanding universe, which in turn implied a beginning, so he put in a constant to stop the expansion. Subsequently, of course, it turned out that he shouldn´t have as the universe is expanding and Hey! it probably had a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago. Unless you just made a mistake, check the text-books - kiddys´ version.

Re space-time - no, I don´t really understand it. Could you please explain?

I´m amazed to hear that BBang, thought to be the beginning of the universe, has nothing to do with the creation of our universe. It does not, of course, tell us how it happened - self-created by some spontaneous process or created by some other agency.

When you talk of universal creation, are you referring to the creation of the universe? Nothing can be certain at the moment on this subject, but an overwhelming percentage of relevant scientists believe that BB was the beginning of our universe. The question, which is presently being debated, is whether there was actually something else before. For example, one theory is that our universe came about as a result of colliding branes (note the missing “i”, KC.), but even though I read about it just a few days ago, I couldn´t tell you anything about it.

Actually, I think Wikipedia is great - but its sources are sometimes suspect. You could probably even post your bizarre ideas on it. I have, though, read a lot of books by reputable phycists/cosmologists - Lee Smolin, Martin Rees, Penrose, Greene, Paul Davis etc. - and, of course, our old friend Steve. I can´t pretend I understood more than a small part - but it does put me ahead of people who have never even heard of these scientists.

KC. There is not much than can be said about your comments, though I wish there were. What a shame you did not run your blog as somewhere for interested people to genuinely debate.
But then it´s your blog………

As my closing contribution to this correspondence, here is an extract from a BBC interview with Richard Dawkins. It seemed quite interesting to me and I would send you the full text but I think you would not read it:

“But was there not, in his mind, a tiny possibility that one of these future physicists could discover God in one of these dimensions?
“Well, I’m convinced that future physicists will discover something at least as wonderful as any god you could ever imagine.” Why not call it God? “I don’t think it’s helpful to call it God.” OK, but what would “it” be like?
“I think it’ll be something wonderful and amazing and something difficult to understand. I think that all theological conceptions will be seen as parochial and petty by comparison.” He can even see how “design” by some gigantic intelligence might come into it. “But that gigantic intelligence itself would need an explanation. It’s not enough to call it God, it would need some sort of explanation such as evolution. Maybe it evolved in another universe and created some computer simulation that we are all a part of. These are all science-fiction suggestions but I am trying to overcome the limitations of the 21st-century mind. It’s going to be grander and bigger and more beautiful and more wonderful and it’s going to put theology to shame.”

Whatever one reads into it, it´s interesting. A horrible thought occurs to me - have you all heard of Richard Dawkins?

Anyway, I´m going back to one of my other interests and some related blogs - Jane Austen.

Robert,

You haven’t been debating. You’ve been merely repeating the same fallacious argument over and over. And now that I’ve bluntly told you I won’t let you post your bullshit without popping up to call it bullshit, you’re going to take your ball and go home.

*snort*

Thanks for playing darlin’. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

KC: I haven´t heard any arguments at all from you for your opinions. A reasonably intelligent and informed person might be expected to have some comment on the item about Dawkins. Were it me, I would want to read the whole thing. Some of what he says ties in with speculations that a lot of us have had, in our modest ways. For example, I think Bernie raised something similar a few posts ago. At any rate, you must have noticed that he mentions the possibility of a gigantic intelligence. He doesn´t say that that is what we will find, merely raises it as a possibility. “Well, Richard - what evidence have you got for such a speculation?”

Neither have I heard back from Ben, regarding the extract from Stephen Hawking´s book, in answer to his accusation that I had lied. Come to that, he ought to inform whether his comment about the implications for the start of the universe of expanding versus steady state universes was a mistake. He´s caught between the devil and the deep blue really. If it was a mistake, then what I assume to be his point is meaningless - but if it wasn´t a mistake, well ………

I have “heard” one really good argument, from Bernie, in answer to my reference to the watch argument. “What about the human body, then?” Had we been arguing in a bar, I would have been floored by that one. Now, having thought about it a bit, I might say that the human body is just another version of the watch argument - but it remains a terrific argument.

I think, KC, that you are really in the same position as I should find myself in were I to start a blog on the terrible state of the citrus farms in Chad. Everytime the man with one eye appeared, I would be in trouble.

Here’s a stumper, robert:

Alex Vilenkin, a contemporary of Hawking’s, has actually proposed a Big Bang theory that does not require any sort of “prime mover” or any sort of M-Theory brane collisions. He suggests negative vacuums that, when faced with eternity, actually are more likely to appear, expand at an alarming rate, fall apart and create true vacuums (the Big Bang) when their initial size is zero, and hence do not exist. Basically, his theory (and there’s quite a bit of mathematical theorizing and support from the community) posits that the universe did literally pop up out of nothing.

Of course, I’m not going to summarize the theory in its entirety here, because that would be a lengthy process and just lead to unnecessary debating over details that I personally did not theorize, and have only read books about.

Needless to say, your concepts of cosmology are both narrow and uninformed. Before you make any claims about a creator, you might want to learn more about the created.

Robert wrote: “Re space-time - no, I don´t really understand it. Could you please explain?”

That will take a lot of study on your part. I strongly encourage you to invest the time.

Once you grasp the concept, you’ll be in a position to understand why grasp of Einstein’s work, not to mention Hawking’s, are short of the mark.

You’ll also be able see that the several questions I asked, were essentially different perspectives of the same reality.

While I find the nature of your tactics incredulous, not to mention insulting, I don’t find anything particularly noteworthy regarding your grasp of cosmological concepts. Simply because ignorance in that field is wide spread … i.e. the norm.

Dear Mr Dawkins,

I think I should tell you immediately, to avoid the possibility of your wasting any more time, that I have heard from authoritative sources (Zennalathas – possibly a Greek philosopher and physicsist, whom I am sure you will know) that your speculations on the possibility of a super-intelligence in another dimension are ill-informed and narrow. The communication I received is a little short on detail, but I will certainly fill you in as the gaps are filled. I also need to inform Mr Hawking about the essential stupidity of his appearing to leave open the possibility that the Universe was somehow created, but you know how bad-tempered he is. It appears that Mr Zennaetc. has established that the universe created itself, something we all knew was a possible solution – but now we have the definitive proof. He also refers to Alex Vilenkin, whose name he appears to think is a secret, but does not refer to Mr Hawking´s theory on the self-contained no-boundary universe that would have no beginning. I assume that this new(ish) theory of Mr Hawking has been definitively shown to be rubbish by Mr Zennetc. It would seem that the views of many of your scientific colleagues, past and present, are also ill-informed and narrow.
Such is life! Every now and then a towering new mind can just appear and overthrow all our ideas and theories. (Of course, the possibility remains that Mr Vennetc is an intellectual fraud, who knows even less than I do about cosmology and physics, but plucked Alex Vilenkin´s name and theory from the internet, via Google. He did, after all, decline to go into much detail about the theory, but that was probably on the justified assumption that I wouldn´t understand it.)

I hope Tigger is well,
Best regards,

PS. I´ve sent a copy of this to Mr Vennetc and his colleagues at the Intellectual HotHouse.
I suggest you contact them direct, so that they can fill you in.

KC. I have never marked the box requesting follow-up comments to be sent to me by email, but still they are. Could you remove me from this, as it is irritating. Curiosity prompts me to see what new rubbish there is - and then to answer with some further rubbish, when really I should be doing other things. Thanks.

Robert: “I have never marked the box requesting follow-up comments to be sent to me by email, but still they are. Could you remove me from this, as it is irritating.”

KC, I’m happy to second Robert’s recommendation. Please! … as I find him irritating as well

In every era there have been things humans did not understand. The creator route satisfied many and let them go back to sleep. When the answer was eventually uncovered it turned out to be logical and simple. One day humans will understand how the universe came into existence, and the answer will be logical and simple. In the meantime we have lives to live so we should just let those who sleepwalk the creator route babble on in their dreams.

KC

THERE IS NO GOD - why is this such a bad thing to say?

Where do you live?? Saudi Arabia? Or do you live in some God-forsaken small town in America, where 40% of the population still goes to church every week. You have an opinion which you are free to express in most places and, as it happens, I think you are likely right.

However, I´ve been reading some of your past posts and what is clear is that neither you nor your contributors know anything about cosmology or physics. (Alright, there is one exception to this.) How can you have an opinion on the subject if you have no pertinent information? You must believe, or rather not believe, as a matter of unreasoning faith, because there is clearly no rational process involved. Why don´t you start another equally ridiculous blog. Maybe, PI IS INFINITE IN LENGTH. I know you don´t know anything about mathematics or pi either, but what the hell…….

Do you think it intelligent to have a strong and belligerent opinion about something without being able to explain the rational thought processes you went through to reach that opinion? Were you attacked by a bishop some time, did a cross fall off the roof of a church and hit you on the head? Were you nearly drowned in the baptismal water? It´s good to have opinions, even strong ones - but not opinions that are based on nothing more than faith.

max commented: “I´ve been reading some of your past posts and what is clear is that neither you nor your contributors know anything about cosmology or physics. (Alright, there is one exception to this.) How can you have an opinion on the subject if you have no pertinent information? You must believe, or rather not believe, as a matter of unreasoning faith, because there is clearly no rational process involved.”

hmmm … Max, do you mean to imply that a knowledge of cosmology is uniquely pertinent with regards to the question of god’s existence? … that if one is not competent in cosmology one cannot be rational in their belief or non-belief?

Absolutely - except that I agree with one of your past people. Not God, but a creator. Then it becomes a scientific question. Was the universe created or did it create itself. I doubt we can ever come up with an answer -but to have an opinion without some relevant scientific knowledge is ridiculous. On what other basis are you going to form an opinion? I found the Dawkins interview that a past contributor talks about. He does talk about maybe there is a superintelligence in another dimension. He absolutely does not believe in God - but he also speculates about a creator. So, I guess all you folks don´t agree with Dawkins.

(Why do you write God without a capital letter? Even fictional characters are written with a capital. Harry Potter, not harry potter, Robinson Crusoe, Superman, Dracula etc. It seems sort of childish to write “god”. Making a point - look at me, the Che Guevara of the fight against religion. Oh, what revolutionary souls we all are. We don´t know anything but we have VERY STRONG OPINIONS. While we´re about it, Shakespeare was actually written by Marlowe and the Loch Ness Monster doesn´t exist.)

Max remarked: Was the universe created or did it create itself. I doubt we can ever come up with an answer -but to have an opinion without some relevant scientific knowledge is ridiculous.

I agree. However, I’ll clarify that there is no scientific evidence that the universe isn’t eternal. Given that it does exist, I personally find the thought that it is eternal simpler than other options which require something from nothing and/or reaction before action.

I found the Dawkins interview that a past contributor talks about. He does talk about maybe there is a superintelligence in another dimension. He absolutely does not believe in God - but he also speculates about a creator. So, I guess all you folks don´t agree with Dawkins.

Regarding Dawkins, he speaks for himself. I personally find the idea that men claim to speak for, and be an agent of, their God to be revolting in the extreme. Meaning Dawkins does not speak for me. However, Dawkin’s philosophical speculations does not equate to a statement of belief. So I see nothing here to agree or disagree on.

To be more clear … regarding super-intelligence, there is no evidence of that. Nor is there evidence for “another dimension”. Its one thing to speculate (without relevant scientific knowledge), and another to form an opinion regarding the existence of such things. I do not find it in error to reject the possibility of such claims. The claimant bears the burden providing evidence. There are an infinite number of speculations which consistently explain any given phenomena. I don’t have sufficient resources to entertain such things. So I reject them all, even if I must hedge my bet and admit I do not *know* such things are not true.

Why do you write God without a capital letter? Even fictional characters are written with a capital [...] It seems sort of childish to write “god”.

I do my best to apply proper english usage. Meaning that if I use the work “god” is it lower case, but if I use the proper name “Yahweh” it is capitalized. Thus, when used in the context of a proper name I do try to use capitals … However, I admit I do error in this more often than I’d like … generally because it is difficult to determine or communicate the intended context.

Is my use of the word “god”, as a qualification of an infinite number of speculative beings who are associated with phenomena we (or some) do not understand, “childish”? … I don’t think so.

It doesn’t take much scientific knowledge to realise that once you posit a creator you must then ask what created the creator. And then what created the creators creator. etc. etc.
The creator route goes nowhere and you don’t need a doctorate in physics to realise this.

Ben:

There is loads of scientific evidence that the our universe has not existed eternally. For example, had it done so the stars would all have burnt out an eternity ago and, if they had not, the night sky would be as bright as day. Atoms would have broken down an eternity ago and their constituent parts would have broken down also, possibly even including protons. Also, even if the universe were eternally old, the same question basically remains. How come? Why?

There is presently no credible scientific evidence for why the universe exists, as one of your other contribs pointed out. Most of cosmology when talking about the origin of the universe is speculation. The idea of a fluctuation in the nothing is coming under increasing attack as being ridiculous, as is string theory. There are even now questions about distance measurements in the universe as it turns out that the light from distant galaxies is dimmed by huge amounts of dust (or ash) in space. Dawkins does speak for himself, of course, but whose opinion do you suppose will and should carry more weight - yours - or his, which he is always happy to give his reasons for?

You are free to have all the opinions you like, rational or otherwise. Why not start a blog? “TOLSTOY´S SYNTAX WAS CRAP”. I know you probably don´t speak a whole lot of Russian and probably haven´t even read a book in translation by Tolstoy. But what the hell.

It is a minor point, but I don´t quite follow your rationale for putting the g in God in lower case. Isn´t it a proper name to the same extent as Harry Potter is a proper name? Or do you think of it as a job. We might talk about Lawyer Simms, but we would say Simms is a lawyer. What is childish is your usage of “god” to express disdain for people who happen to believe in him/her/it. It is intended to offend and the stuff about your using it as a collective noun for “an infinte number of speculative beings etc. ” is crap.

Bernie:

You have had this same argument before with others - well, one other. It is obvious that something very strange happened to cause the existence of the universe. I know a small amount about physics and cosmology, which have to be the all-important sciences when you are talking about the origin of the universe - I know enough to discover that no-one presently has the least idea how it happened. I also know enough to have discovered that no physicist or cosmologist expresses the same certainties that most of the people on this blog do. Hawking, referred to in previous posts, is a well-known atheist but even he has expressed uncertainties. (He has also objected strongly to being described as an atheist.) I suppose someone who believes in a creator might say in answer to your question that such a being would exist out of time and, therefore, had no beginning. Incredible, of course, but there is no answer that is not incredible.

Max: There is loads of scientific evidence that the our universe has not existed eternally.

Actually not. There is no evidence in support of, or against, an eternal universe. What is certain is the temporal and spatial constraints of the observable Universe. There is no evidence regarding what existed beyond the limits of observation.

Max: For example, had it done so the stars would all have burnt out an eternity ago and, if they had not, the night sky would be as bright as day.

I did not imply that the existence of stars is eternal. In fact, I think my prior response was clear in the inference that they did not.

Max: Atoms would have broken down an eternity ago and their constituent parts would have broken down also, possibly even including protons.

It is irrelevant to the subject at hand, but I agree with you in the sense that the universe eventually reach a state of low energy density and nearly no mass.

Max: Also, even if the universe were eternally old, the same question basically remains. How come? Why?

Your question begs the existence of a governing intelligence. There is no evidence of such, and even if there were, there is still no proof that having one to ask a question ensures a correct or even that the question itself is relevant.

The universe exists. “Why?” can only be answered if the universe were not eternal. Meaning the “why” of its existence lies in the infinite sequence of events (causes and effects) that brought it to its present state.

Further, if the universe is not eternal, then what created it, and what created the creator? … it is a circle in logic. A circle that often ends with the insistence that the mother of all creation was eternal.

Max: Most of cosmology when talking about the origin of the universe is speculation.

It is all speculation. However, it you mean; “How did the universe come to arrive in the state we are able to observe?”, than the qualification of “speculation” is mixed. The more evidence that exists and the better adapted theories are in explaining and predicting, the less the speculation (but make no mistake all of science’s theories are speculative to some degree).

Max: Dawkins does speak for himself, of course, but whose opinion do you suppose will and should carry more weight - yours - or his

Opinions are irrelevant in science. Evidence carries all the weight.

Max: Why not start a blog?

I already did … Ben’s Place”

Max: I don´t quite follow your rationale for putting the g in God in lower case. Isn´t it a proper name to the same extent as Harry Potter is a proper name?

No. The term is used to describe an infinite number of speculative beings. Each with their own proper names.

Max: It is intended to offend and the stuff about your using it as a collective noun for “an infinte number of speculative beings etc. ” is crap.

Hmmm … please allow me to speak for myself, and feel free to speak for yourself, but please don’t attempt to speak for me. ok?

Speaking for myself; if you feel persecuted by my personal expression of my personal opinion … too bad. If you hope to intimidate me or to force your opinion down my throat, it won’t work. I make an effort to be respectful and polite, but that doesn’t indicate a weakness in my character.

Ben:

Dear…..dear………aren´t we sensitive souls!

As your previous correspondent attempted to get over, assuming for the moment that the universe started at some point in the past, then it was created by some force or entity - or it created itself. The only sensible answer to this is: “I don´t know which, though my inclination is towards….”. As soon as you assert that it was not created then you are going for it creating itself, or coming into existence spontaneously, because there is no other option. At that point it is perfectly legitimate to ask you the question that you love: What evidence is there…. that it could or did create itself.
There is presently no evidence either way. People, including scientists, have opinions in both directions - but you will have difficulty finding scientists who assert with your dogmatic insistence that there is only one option.
See the quotes from Hawking and Dawkins sent you by Robert.

The idea that the universe has existed eternally is also an option, which cannot be disproved. (It also depends on what you mean by the Universe - “our universe” as is meant by most scientists most certainly has not existed eternally, for all the reasons I gave and a whole lot of other ones.)
Regarding what, if anything, came before BB, I refer you to Chapter 8 of a Briefer History of Time - mentioning only a particular sentence that I found striking:

“This means that questions such as who set up the conditions for the big bang are not questions that science addresses”. Why do you suppose I found that sentence striking?

My question as to “why” for an eternal universe does not beg the existence of anything. It merely repeats what a physicist that I exchanged emails with said - he has always wondered why there should be anything at all. To use the language that you love, there is no evidence for a universe that has existed eternally. (As a side issue, I have always wondered how you can have an event in a universe that has existed eternally. Why wouldn´t the event already have happened an eternity ago?)

I am,though, pleased to see you come up with some more credible stuff than in what I have seen previously, either with me or with my friend Robert, with whom I have had many enjoyable debates and arguments. (He is a someone whom I´ve known for umpteen years and was staying with me when you “debated” with him before. I remember that one of his invariably well-expressed comments was: “Trying to find a brain cell in their collective head is like crawling round the Sahara desert in summer looking for an ice cube.” He was not necessarily referring to you and your colleagues. In fact, he wasn´t.)

Regarding God with a lower case g, the English language is wonderfully flexible, but I have never before seen the word God, with a lower case g, used as a collective noun for an infinite number of speculative things. I am sure everyone will be absolutely convinced by your “explanation”. As I am not a believer in God, I am do not feel personally offended (or persecuted, as you say) - but, yes, there is something disagreeable about seeing other people deliberately offended by a piece of idiocy.

Max: As your previous correspondent attempted to get over, assuming for the moment that the universe started at some point in the past, then it was created by some force or entity - or it created itself.

You include it later, but I think it more appropriate to include the it now. Before speculating on the nature of creation we should first speculate on whether or not a “creation” even occurred, or if it’s present nature is simply the result of an evolution from a prior state. My inclination is to answer; no there was not creation. Simply because this is the simplest answer (we need not answer the question as to the nature or origin of the creator).

Max: The idea that the universe has existed eternally is also an option, which cannot be disproved. (It also depends on what you mean by the Universe - “our universe” as is meant by most scientists most certainly has not existed eternally, for all the reasons I gave and a whole lot of other ones.)

Regarding; “What is meant by the universe?”; the universe is all that exists, ever has existed, and ever will exist. Its nature may have evolved so significantly that beings bound to the current state will never grasp the nature of a prior state, but that does not mean that the universe is not eternal. Only that your grasp of the nature of the universe is limited.

Max: Regarding what, if anything, came before BB, I refer you to Chapter 8 of a Briefer History of Time - mentioning only a particular sentence that I found striking:
“This means that questions such as who set up the conditions for the big bang are not questions that science addresses”. Why do you suppose I found that sentence striking?
My question as to “why” for an eternal universe does not beg the existence of anything. It merely repeats what a physicist that I exchanged emails with said - he has always wondered why there should be anything at all.

There is no why in the philosophical sense (imo). Why did Babe Ruth’s last home run go over the fence? … because he smacked the heck out of it
Regarding your speculation, the question as to “why?” implies the question; “What is the purpose of the universe?; or what is the purpose of me?” Which is a question I’d never ask because I find it irrelevant. Further, when I hear it asked by others, I can only speculate on the motive. Of which the only motives that come to my mind is a hope that something external to the individual can give the individual purpose, or it is an exercise in vanity (a feeling that I am so significantly important that something much greater than myself must be responsible for my creation). Perhaps there are other possibilities, but since the question doesn’t intrigue me, I’m not the best to construct a list.

All evidence indicates that the universe, as we know it, is a product of enumerable causes and effects. There is no objective and intelligent answer to “why?” or as to a dictated purpose. However while there is no evidence for a predetermined purpose for the universe, or for us, I realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence … meaning I take no issue with individuals believing what ever they find agreeable to themselves. That said, I do take substantial exception with those who try to force their religious opinions on others. There are no agents for God (see how I used the proper form ). Those who posture as such are placing their subjective opinions ahead of others … From a philosophical position, I’d say they are placing their opinions above God’s.

Max: I am, though, pleased to see you come up with some more credible stuff than in what I have seen previously [...]

Thanks!… pardon me if a blush a bit

Ben:

I had a look at your website and my first reaction was “Oh no! Not another atheist blog!! What´s with these people - OK, so they´re atheists - Big deal - so what!” Then I saw your picture, always assuming it´s you and I thought: Hell! There´s a human being at the other end. And he´s grinning, so he has a sense of humour too. I am usually only rude and sarcastic to good friends and relatives and they do the same thing back and most of the time we´re just kidding. There´s something funny about the internet, though. If I find myself debating/arguing with someone, it seems as though at the other end there´s a computer-generated virtual being, to whom I can reasonably be as rude and sarcastic as I want. Someone made a mistake in their wiring. After all, they are not fellow human beings. You´ve ruined it now, because I see there is in fact a person there, who probably is actually called Ben and I feel guilty about having been rude and sarcastic.

The truth is, that we do not really disagree that much.
I do not believe in God and I do not believe in some entity that created the universe. The problem is that I do not believe in the alternatives either. A quantum fluctuation in the absolute and total nothing, for no cause, does not seem credible to me and neither does the concept of a universe that has existed for all eternity. This last I do not believe in because most scientists, who are generally pretty bright and spend their lives thinking about this stuff, do not believe in it, and also because had the universe existed for all time backwards I do not think we could be here debating it. Everything that could happen would already have happened an eternity ago. I do not believe that anything happens or exists without a cause, though there may well be things that we do not know and cannot know the cause for. So, the question of why there should be anything at all to try and explain is a legitimate one, even if we can never know the answer. Whatever the answer is, it has to be something weird and probably beyond human comprehension. I find totally incredible some of the peculiarities that Robert referred to - all of them, but particularly the clocks. We are standing on a street corner, you and I, with our perfect atomic watches. We synchronise them. Then I walk round the block and come back 10 minutes later and the watches now mark different times. How can that be??????? A detail, I know, like lots of other inexplicable things about the working of the universe. And the atom - over 99.999% empty space???????? Paul Davis (or is it Davies?) says, in an article that I read a while ago, that science has proven very good at finding out facts about the universe and how it works but has not been very good on answering the question “why”.

(You said earlier and I forgot to respond, which is probably just as well, that there is no evidence for the existence of other dimensions – re Dawkins´ speculations. String theory, of course, requires the existence of at least 6 other dimensions. Add this to the list of things I don´t comprehend. What are these other dimensions? Why can´t we see them? Because they are rolled up tight the string theory physicists say. Ah!! I don´t even understand how time can be considered the fourth dimension. One of the startling things I´ve discovered, from emails that I and Robert have sent to cosmologists, is that all these things which I assumed I did not understand through lack of brain power or vision, the cosmologists and physicists don´t understand either. “Keep your head down and do the math” one of them said is an aphorism amongst them.)

When we are talking about why the universe exists, there is no evidence for anything, which is why I don´t think lack of evidence is a valid reason itself for rejecting any speculation. All the different theories are in reality pure speculation. (At least, at the moment).

Anyway, I do apologise for earlier rudeness and sarcasm – though I remain convinced that you should stop spelling God with a small g.

Max: The truth is, that we do not really disagree that much.
I do not believe in God and I do not believe in some entity that created the universe. The problem is that I do not believe in the alternatives either. A quantum fluctuation in the absolute and total nothing, for no cause, does not seem credible to me and neither does the concept of a universe that has existed for all eternity. This last I do not believe in because most scientists, who are generally pretty bright and spend their lives thinking about this stuff, do not believe in it, and also because had the universe existed for all time backwards I do not think we could be here debating it.

I agree that all speculations concerning universal creation are bunk. I’d prefer that anyone positing such would qualify their remarks as speculation. Events that are unobservable due to their distance to us (in time or space) are unknown. To attempt to use science to explain speculations looks silly to me.

Personally, I wish fewer individuals would focus on what they cannot know, and turn their passions toward the mystery as to the mechanism of space/time expansion and the mechanism of the collapse of space in the presence of mass.

Regarding “belief”, I’ll point out that a majority of scientists are uncomfortable with the term “believe”, at least in the realm of science. Science seek our understanding, not belief. I’ve observed that “belief” is often accompanied by a degree passion for the idea or self-righteousness, which is destructive, imo.

Along that vein I don’t see myself as “believing” in anything. I’ll work with the best understanding of phenomena that I can master, and will eagerly embrace better ones as they become available to me.

When it comes to passion, I am quite passionate about liberty (everyone’s not just mine), and find religious tyranny particularly troubling due to it being entirely subjective, and due to the profound vanity of those who claim to be agents for God.

Max: [...] science has proven very good at finding out facts about the universe and how it works but has not been very good on answering the question “why”.

There are many questions that interest individuals that science cannot answer. In this case, speaking of a purpose, you are correct.

I don´t even understand how time can be considered the fourth dimension.

It makes the math conceptually simpler to treat space and time in the same way. Although time has some different properties associated with.

Max: When we are talking about why the universe exists, there is no evidence for anything, which is why I don´t think lack of evidence is a valid reason itself for rejecting any speculation. All the different theories are in reality pure speculation.

All theories are speculative, but not all speculations are theories. If there can be no evidence then there can be no theory. However, speculations can apply to anything, without regards to evidence.

That said the question of (quest for) purpose is passionately important to many individuals. It is the realm of religion where these questions are sought. It is regrettable that organized religion attempts to place judgement on such a deeply personal and passionate quest.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that many individuals lack the character to seek out a purpose for themselves. Organized religion does attempt to provide one. Even if I think they do it improperly, there are many who like it as it is.

After reading through much of the above I would like to quote Omar Khayyam.

How long, how long, in infinite Pursuit
Of This and That endeavour and dispute?
Better be merry with the fruitful Grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit.

And also:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

I have a theory about species survival. Religion is a disease and the species that fails to find a cure fails to survive. Just look at our own. From the beginning of the big monotheistic religions we’ve been at each others throats arguing that ‘my god is better than your god’.

Personally, I’m a follower of the true Messiah, Brian of Nazareth.

“Brian of Nazareth” … from “The Life of Brian”?

Nice!

Ben and Bernie:

I don´t know if you still look at this new expanded website – but I think all you militant atheists spend a lot of time looking at each others´ sites.

I seem to remember, Ben, saying that I don´t understand space/time, which was a bit misleading. I do understand the theoretical aspects of it, but I do not understand how it can be true. Guess what - it turns out that physicists don´t understand either. The conservative majority confine themselves to saying it´s “counter-intuitive” while the more flamboyant ones , like Brian Greene, call it bizarre. (He also calls simultaneous action at a distance “spooky” and various other unexplained and unexplainable aspects of the natural world by similar uncomfortable adjectives.)

(The key thing in space-time is that motion in time plus motion in space always come to exactly the speed of light, with obvious consequences for time.)

I think we may have agreed that once one has eliminated a divine creator as an explanation for the existence of the Universe, it becomes a scientific question with three possible answers. Created by some force or entity; created itself; or eternal. (Militant atheists always go for number three, as, for some reason, they find themselves bound to reject number one – even though no reputable physicists would do so – while number two is pretty hard to believe. Number three becomes the only viable option for them, because, in their innocence they, don´t know that this one is at least as improbable as the other two.)

I know Bernie has the eccentric opinion that, even though the question of how come there is a universe is a scientific one, it is not necessary to know any science. He has faith in his opinion, which, in fact, is based only on faith. Still and all, I do think your militant atheism would be enhanced and less open to easy attack if you did know some. I don´t think your opinions would change, but you would lose your dogmatic certainties. I think most militant atheists do not pause very long to think about the various alternatives and to realize that whatever the answer is, it has to be unbelievably incredible. (I recommend Brian Greene´s “The Fabric of the Cosmos”.)

Robert,

I’ve never seen anybody get so many things wrong in a single paragraph.

The term ‘militant atheist’ is somewhat of a mantra to you. I’m not exactly manning the barricades and my only objection to the belief in a creator is that it leads to that disease we term religion. And a quick glance at planet Earth is all you need know where that in turn leads.

As for the rest of your nonsense, which is drowning in meaningless adjectives and mis-quotes, I doubt whether a piece by piece explanation of your mistakes would get past your immune system so I won’t bother trying.

Robert commented: I do understand the theoretical aspects of it, but I do not understand how it can be true. Guess what - it turns out that physicists don´t understand either. The conservative majority confine themselves to saying it´s “counter-intuitive” while the more flamboyant ones , like Brian Greene, call it bizarre.

huh? ? ?

Science models space-time using very precise and accurate *mathematics*. It appears scientists understand the concept of space-time quite well. So well, in fact, that we are able to send probes to the outer reaches of the solar system using that math. With out that understanding those attempts would have failed.

The key thing in space-time is that motion in time plus motion in space always come to exactly the speed of light, with obvious consequences for time

? ? ? … huh?

“Motion is space” is simple enough, it is commonly measured as velocity, acceleration, etc.

… but “Motion in time” … how do you measure that? … or is that a colorful euphemism for “passage of time”?

In any event, motion in the universe is limited by the speed of light. It is not equal to the speed of light.