Unfortunately, I only read the first couple of lines of your previous effort, about the primitive. “Oh no! More kindergarten piffle from Bernie!” Perhaps, had I read it, I would have discovered that it was a very good little cameo, with a beginning, a middle and an end – wise and relevant. Why do I suspect that this would not have been the case?

It is hard to understand why you are unable to accept the possibility that our universe came about through the agency of something outside of itself. Born in a black hole in another universe, perhaps? Were it not that you consider information useless and read nothing on this subject, I would suggest that you dipped into Lee Smolin. You did recommend that I read “non-mainstream” cosmologists, by which I assume you mean the cosmological equivalents of Kurt Vonnegut – but were you to take up reading, you really would be better off with the mainstream, at least to start. You would probably lose your facile certainties, which arise from ignorance.

Unfortunately, I have forgotten the address of your website – which you assured me is not simply another of the plethora of barely literate militant atheist blogs. I expect I would find it full of interest. Debates on the impact of Kafka on modern thought, a learned discussion on the causes of the Renaissance, the effects of tourism on the Peruvian economy - perhaps even contributions by the advocates of all the main theories as to how the universe came to be, together with the thoughts of some eminent believers in God. You, of course, insert your succinct “opinions”, based on a wealth of ignorance. “There is no evidence that tourism has affected the Peruvian economy” or “there was no Renaissance – and there was no need for one”. My God! What a fine website it must be! Probably won lots of prizes.

Ben: It may be that we have been talking at cross-purposes. If you are simply saying that no-one knows how the Universe came to be, then we agree, but I was under the impression that you had definitely discarded one of the possibilties. It is all speculation. Most cosmologists still seem to believe that there was no “before” the Universe. BB was the beginning of everything - space, time, matter and energy - and BB happened for no cause (which is important). You say that maybe I have not understood what I have read. Quite possible, but I find it very hard to understand why you apparently have made no attempt to read relevant books by cosmologists and physicists. The trouble is, that leaves you with taking the apparently “common-sense” point of view and there are many things about the Universe that simply do not work that way - all those “counter-intuitive” things. How the Universe came to be is another thing that is very unlikely to be subject to “common sense”. There is no “commin-sense” explanation available.

You inveigh against speculation, without apparently realizing that that is precisely what you are doing. [...] If I were to say I believe in the first, I would be speculating - equally if you say you don´t believe in it you are speculating.

Robert, you continue to miss the point.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION FOR A MOMENT!

You are the only one taking a position (speculating) on the origin of the universe. My position is that there is no *known* evidence to support an origin, and no *known* evidence of (nor a theory to describe) the nature of the universe prior to the Big Bang.

As you continue to misrepresent/misundertand my words, and my understanding of Bernie’s, I am increasing confident you do not understand those of Hawking et al. either … Which is a speculation I do posit due to your continued expressed misconceptions of cosmological understanding.

Please don’t ask for examples, many have been given. However, as you been overcome with self-indulgence I’m certain you’ve missed them. If you are genuinely interested they lay in wait of your discovery in the comments above this one.

As I have no vested interested in a futile effort to correct your conceptual short comings and you have expressed a desire to move on to questioning “Coptic influence on modern Ethiopian sculpture” … have fun, and I’ll occupy myself with some constructive activities.

I already sent you some time ago quotations from Hawking and Dawkins, together with where you can find them. As I have said repeatedly, they do not say the universe was brought into existence by something outside itself - they merely leave that possibility open. Look again at the quotes I sent before.

You inveigh (lucky Bernie´s gone, as he would be objecting to my nouns as well as adverbs and adjectives) against speculation, without apparently realising that that is precisely what you are doing. To repeat - there seem to be three possibilities to account for the existence of the universe - created by something outside of itself, popped into existence all on its own (Brian Greene´s words - I think) or existed eternally. No-one knows which is correct, or even whether there is another possibility. There is only one sensible answer - I don´t know. If I were to say I believe in the first, I would be speculating - equally if you say you don´t believe in it you are speculating. Subject to any secret information you and Bernie may have, all three possibilties remain open, though people may differ on prababilities.

Yes, I have been leaning heavily in the words of various scientists. Of course - is there a reasonable alternative?

You would get a lot more out of this whole subject if you read some of what relevant scientists have to say, though, like me, you would probably understand fully only up to about Page 10. Your opinion at the end would probably be just as it is now, but you would certainly have some relevant information - and would possibly even come to distinguish between belief in a god of religion and belief in the possibility that the universe came into being through something outside of itself. You would also come to realize that the universe is a very weird place and that a large chunk of cosmology rests on shaky foundations. We know that time is peculiar, for example - we all walk about with our own times which do not agree – but it seems that space is also subject to argument. What is it? Does it exist if there is nothing in it? As Paul Davies says, science has been very good at finding out “how” (eg. discovering facts) but pretty poor at answering the question “why”.

I think I´ll follow Bernie´s huff and retire from the “debate”. Following his remarkable discovery that knowledge is not necessary to debate meaningfully, I´m going to start a blog questioning Coptic influence on modern Ethiopian sculpture.

Something neither you nor Bernie seem to have grasped is that most of what I have said throughout the “debate” was lifted directly from the writings of Hawking, Davies and others.

Is that an appeal to authority?

In any event, Please give me a reference where Hawking/Davies says “[the universe] wasbrought into existence by some agency outside of itself”.

You have been, therefore, to a large extent arguing indirectly with them.

No of us have debating with Hawkings et al. However, you appear to be patronizing yourself as their representative here … reminds me of the many theists who speak for God … its all in your imagination ;-(

Please….argument at that level is infantile.

A preemptive ad hominem? … or a Freudian moment?

Neither you nor Bernie are equipped to argue about cosmology/physics, because you haven´t read the relevant material. Hawking, Davies etc. do not share your simplistic certainties.

That’s rich … you don’t even understand the points we’ve made. for example the fields of physics and cosmology presently are incapable to describing the pre-Big-Bang universe.

You should both stick to arguing against religion.

ahhh … we are arguing against religion!