Questions for Atheists

[Clubber Lang]

god shows aspects of intelligent design therefore god must have an intelligent designer

something cant come from nothing, therefore something eternal exists, yet this came from nothing by virtue of being eternal.

are you honestly too stupid to see how your argument shoots itself in the foot ?

[Necrosis]

god shows aspects of intelligent design therefore god must have an intelligent designer

something cant come from nothing, therefore something eternal exists, yet this came from nothing by virtue of being eternal.

are you honestly too stupid to see how your argument shoots itself in the foot ?

im not arguing for intelligent design. nothing never exsisted, stop falling short of intelligence and realize this. and if nothing exsisted then you wouldnt be typing for the reason you already said. look at the definition of eternal and enlightenment is yours in this situation, my argument does nothing you claim it does but yours is a jumble of sentences that does not work. you say eternal came from nothing, this is convaluted beyond belief and then say that nothing could create something. i dont want to keep arguing this point because there is nothing left to argue, it is fact sorry nothing cannot produce something, at least physics, and reason and meta physics say it cannot so therefore nothing has ever exsisted or something would not exsist, do you follow. there is only one truth and two things cannot exsist as the  opposite thing at the same time. therefore nothing could not exsist or something would never exsist and we know something exsists=something is uncaused cause or eternal(this word means to be perpetual or everlasting thus always was). your argument has been defeated by people smarter then me at a more pronounced pace, really you dont understand what intelligent design is from your arguments, nor morality, nor what the exsistence of the world implies, stop the ignorance and read a book please.

funny you should mention shot in the foot your sentence is a display of mutually exclusive terms bunched together to show ignorance at its peak

"something cant come from nothing, therefore something eternal exists, yet this came from nothing by virtue of being eternal".
 you show lack of ability to decipher nothing from something then show that you dont understand what the word eternal suggests hahahah, the  other atheists are cringing when they read your posts as you make their arguments seem stupid by virture of affiliation ahaha.

[Clubber Lang]

i was trying to use simple sentences so as not to confuse you (honestly)

ill try again:

if something is eternal

it didnt come from anything

if something didnt come from anything

it came from nothing

i really dont see how i can dumb this down any further ??

[Necrosis]

you are fooling yourself my friend. i dont how to describe it to you, you cant conceptualize infinity because we dont see it, but rest assured it exsists. this i think is the problem, dumb it down if you want but the only one confused is you.

anything is not a type of nothing, nothing is nothing therefore something or anything could not exsist if there ever was nothing, are you following. your having a problem conceptualizing nothing as many people do but your describing something not nothing, herein lies the problem. if something is eternal(which is logical since we are here)then there never was nothing, as nothing did not exsist.

you lack philosophical tuning is the problem. nothing cannot create anything or something therefore nothing has never exsisted and something exsists that is at its essence to exsist, therefore is eternal aka not caused aka didnt come from nothing aka.  your arguing in circles because of lack of knowledge.

look ill fix up your reasoning
if something is eternal
nothing never exsisted
therefore something has always exsisted or is eternal or infinite or not finite

anything is a type of something not nothing your getting confused and arguing in circles. just stop and think about the mutually exclusive terms your using and then think of how only one or the other can exsist then try to conceptualize infinite to the best of your intellect and you will come to the conclusion that something always had to exsist for anything to exsist at all.

[NeoSeminole]

here something exsists rather then nothing-fact
nothing cannot create something-fact(vaccum is a type of something) if your having trouble grasping this i can help
therefore nothing never exsisted.
so something is eternal that is the result of us and this unverse-this is a given and accepted in science, based on the meta physics i laid out and reason and experience
eternal means to not be created un-created, something in this universe is uncreated-this is the premise of the athiest and theist agreement that a non thing created the universe, they differ on that non thing, i say god you say matter is everything and eternal
therefore there is an uncaused cause this is a theorem by the way and you know what theorems are right.

Usmokepole, there are several problems with your argument. Quantum physics tells us a vacuum is not truly empty. Pairs of real particle-virtural particles spontaneously pop in and out of existence continuously and very rapidly. You claim this is a type of something. However, the quantum vacuum is still an example of something created from nothing. It's theoretically possible these fluctuations have always occured - even before the Big Bang.

You assume whatever created this universe is uncaused. This premise has absolutely no merit. Perhaps whatever created our universe was caused by something else and the chain of events stops there. Or maybe something created that something else that caused whatever created this universe. We simply don't know. It's possible this universe spawned from another with different physical laws than our own.

Moreover, your conclusion is flawed. You suggest there is an uncaused cause and then make the logical jump that it must be god. None of your premises hint at a supernatural deity. In fact, even if we ignore your false assumptions, all that your argument establishes is there was an uncaused cause. It does nothing to prove what that cause is.

By the way, you never answered my question. How can an immaterial, supernatural being so much as lift a grain of sand let alone create a material, natural universe?

[Necrosis]

excellent to see you posting but i am appalled by your lack of logic you usually display. who created the vaccum, or what created the vaccum are you saying the vacumm is eternal. i said to wait for my whole argument but i wanted to disprove stupid ill logic that is being used. i jumped to the conclusion because you havent heard my whole argument yet, so therefore i will provide steps into my logic. the vaccum is something not nothing, it is in no way shape or form something created from nothing. you guys dont understand what the word nothing is. given eternal time nothing cannot create you me or a vaccum because it contains no potentiallity it is void of potentiality. understand this concept and the argument ends.

you have no idea that the vaccum was not created from nothing, your trying to use science in the realm of the metaphysical. the vaccum is not eternal and all your doing is delaying the question what is the first cause.

again im sad to see your logic fall this low, the law of cause and effect must end in an uncaused cause for your perfectly pointing to my argument, there was never nothing. something cannot create nothing this is a self-evident truth, the vaccum is something creating something the vaccum is not a kind of nothing, something is not nothing they are mutually exclusive. mutually exclusive is a meta physical proof that cant be proved but science rests on it. the vaccum that created us has always exsisted or was created, this is logical. i havent proved god exsisted yet nor can i, i can just provide so much evidence that your view seems irrational.

again your logic is flawed. if there is a chain of events in which the first cause was uncaused like your saying then something is eternal. the first action of the universe cannot be made from nothing, what law dictates this. the first cause, say a vaccum could not come from nothing, and the vaccum is a type of something creating something. i dont know what your arguing but it isnt even logical, you also are confusing the two terms my friend.

my purportion that whatever caused the universe was uncaused has all the merit in the world for nothing has never created something and the laws of nature require something to work, they cannot exsist before matter, follow. this is confusing but after practice the terms will seem easy.

mutually exclusive here ya go
if nothing has ever at one time exsisted, based on logic, reason and experience something could never exsist. either something or nothing, but neither could have exsisted at one time. if you doubt me read some old antony flew which is the leading atheist who talks about the non-thing. again i will wrap much more then this in a rational unit but your logic has no merit. the law of cause and effect cannot just pop out of the air, it requires to end in an uncaused cause the must itself exsist, for if nothings essence was to exsist the first cause would never be.

[Necrosis]

i got an idea go on avant labs and go to the metaphysics section and say that a quantum vaccum is an example of nothing creating something, you will be put to shame for that illogic. by the way did i mention your arguing against a theorem, a theorem like pythagorus for example, you will find it silly if you understood your premise at all.

[NeoSeminole]

you assume too much in your premise. An argument that rests on faulty premises is not very convincing. I have to eat now, but I will respond after I'm done.

[Necrosis]

this is not my premise and it is in no way faulty it is the crux of meta physics and philosophy for years. a great read is aquinas on this subject, they established a matrix of metaphysics which science rests on. i will expand much more i promise but something has to be eternal and that which created the universe has to be a non-thing this i a theme in all the recent literature from both sides i have read. anyway i will present the whole argument soon, but there is no point arguing this as it is a theorem and is factual. nothing cannot not ever, ever,ever,ever,ever create something this much we know. so if nothing has ever exsisted something would not be here, there is no arguing. but yes it still doesnt prove a god, but that something is infinite, this could be matter etc. but i will argue that later. i would suggest you save it for after i write the argument, i cant write it now as it will take a while and a bit more reading so i dont make mistakes in the quantum part.

[NeoSeminole]

the vaccum is something not nothing, it is in no way shape or form something created from nothing. you guys dont understand what the word nothing is. given eternal time nothing cannot create you me or a vaccum because it contains no potentiallity it is void of potentiality. understand this concept and the argument ends. you have no idea that the vaccum was not created from nothing, your trying to use science in the realm of the metaphysical. the vaccum is not eternal and all your doing is delaying the question what is the first cause.

Your definition of nothing is wrong. It refers to the condition or quality of being nonexistent. Nowhere does it say nothing cannot have potential. At the quantum level, pairs of real particle-virtural particles routinely emerge from nothingness to exist for a brief while. This is an example of something coming from nothing. It's theoretically
possible quantum fluctuations have always occured since they are not dependent on the universe.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

again im sad to see your logic fall this low, the law of cause and effect must end in an uncaused cause for your perfectly pointing to my argument, there was never nothing. something cannot create nothing this is a self-evident truth, the vaccum is something creating something the vaccum is not a kind of nothing, something is not nothing they are mutually exclusive. mutually exclusive is a meta physical proof that cant be proved but science rests on it. the vaccum that created us has always exsisted or was created, this is logical.

ha ha ha, your argument relies on faulty assumptions yet my logic is 'flawed.' There is no law of cause and effect in the physical sciences. This is merely philosophical conjecture. Furthermore, not all effects require a cause. Quantum particles are observed to behave on their own without any influence.

again your logic is flawed. if there is a chain of events in which the first cause was uncaused like your saying then something is eternal. the first action of the universe cannot be made from nothing, what law dictates this. the first cause, say a vaccum could not come from nothing, and the vaccum is a type of something creating something. i dont know what your arguing but it isnt even logical, you also are confusing the two terms my friend.

How can my logic be flawed if I never claimed something is eternal? I was only showing why your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Regarding a quantum vacuum, I have already explained why your concept of "nothing" is wrong.

my purportion that whatever caused the universe was uncaused has all the merit in the world for nothing has never created something and the laws of nature require something to work, they cannot exsist before matter, follow. this is confusing but after practice the terms will seem easy.

No, your assumption has absolutely no merit. Perhaps whatever created our universe was caused by something else and the chain of events stops there. You cannot say for sure whatever created this universe was the first cause. For all we know, this universe could have spawned from another which spawned from another, etc. Or maybe the universe has gone through a series of cyclic expansions and crunches.

[Necrosis]

ok i will pose the whole argument. agian the vaccum is something not nothing dont see how this something creating something proves that nothing exsisted. if the law of cause and effect wasnt viable then science would fail. quantum physics do show relationship of cause and effect probablistically, i will show this. your a fool if you think nothing can have potential you are merely playing on words like most physicist who claim the vaccum is nothing, it is something. basically all nobel laeurates accpet that something is eternal just cause you lack the education behind the implications of physics to decipher this does not matter to me. nothing can never create something, it is nothing not something this is known as the law of mutually exclusivity, another scienctific assumption.

you havent demonstrated why my concept is wrong, your using the wrong definition and expecting me to beleive that a vaccum poped out of nothing when nothing has nothing for anything to exsist from, follow. premise isnt false it is an age old theorem. my definition is not wrong , ahahh your playing on words you dont understand.

happenings in a vaccum are not nothing creating something, your concept of nothing is in fact wrong, occurences in the atom are governed by pre exssiting laws and matter around them which allow "nothing" to create something. a vaccum is not nothing so the creation of something within them is not nothing to something. true nothingness cannot create something, it is nothing, this is like talking to a child with you guys, your describing something then using it as a premise to say nothing created something.

[NeoSeminole]

I don't know how to explain quantum fluctuations any simpler to you. I want you to imagine there is nothing. From this state of nothingness, a pair of particles spontaneously pop into existence, annihilate each other, and vanish. This is an example of something coming from nothing. At the quantum level, pairs of real particle-virtural particles emerge from nothingness to exist for a brief while. Quantum fluctuations are not dependent on the universe. Ergo, it's theoretically possible they were present before the Big Bang. I think the reason you struggle with this notion is b/c your definition of 'nothing' is a philosophical concept that only exist in the mind.

[Necrosis]

best reply you have had all night. show me how a vaccum can come from nothing. i do agree with you that a vaccum may be eternal, but you are arguing that something is not eternal, something has to be eternal and some non-thing must have created the universe.

[NeoSeminole]

best reply you have had all night. show me how a vaccum can come from nothing. i do agree with you that a vaccum may be eternal, but you are arguing that something is not eternal, something has to be eternal and some non-thing must have created the universe.

Asking me to show you how a vacuum comes from nothing is like asking me to show how nothing comes from nothing. Your question makes no sense. I don't know if a quantum vacuum is eternal or not. Notice I said earlier that it's theoretically possible. Futhermore, I'm not aruging that anything is eternal. We simply don't have enough information. I brought up quantum fluctuations b/c you stated that "nothing cannot create something" in your premise. This is untrue.

[Necrosis]

it is not untrue, in nothing no laws which govern movement action of matter could exsist. these laws are in place in  a vaccum and rule your whole argument out. there are examples of seemingly nothing creating something however, in this world of something there is no true nothing, follow. so your example holds no weight. i can further talk about the vaccum but i want to make a whole concesive argument not bits and pieces which are weak on their own.

[NeoSeminole]

Your definition of 'nothing' is a philosophical concept that only exist in the mind. It would be like me saying "unless God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, then he's not really a god." We know from logic that such a god is not possible. In addition, you assume that everything must have a cause. Quantum mechanics tells us that particles at the sub-atomic level behave without causation. Therefore, no laws are needed to govern how virtual particle pairs come from nothing. The physical laws only dictate how these particles interact while in existence.

[Necrosis]

you dont know what your talking about in terms of quantum mechanics, they do not behave without causation, you just dont understand there relationship. i will adress all this in my argument relax bro, to deny there is a god is to deny exsistence.

you have no meta-physical safistication and i no longer will argue its merits with you. without meta-physics science cannot operate enough said, your arguments are see through. you have trouble conceptualizing nothing, anything to do with a vaccum is something, got to go i will elaborate more.

[NeoSeminole]

Meta-physics belongs in the realm of philosophy and not science. Quit trying to pretend you know what you are talking about. For example, the law of cause and effect (which you vehemently defend) is a philosophical concept that has been disproven by quantum mechanics. Also, you keep using a definition of 'nothing' that only exist in the mind. It would be like me saying "unless God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, then he's not really a god." We know from logic that such a god is not possible. I guess he isn't real then.

[Necrosis]

you ginger cookie, cause and effect exsists at the quantum level and i will show you why. you are dealing with a super intellect mind you . it can be said that there are noprecisely measurable classical deterministic causes at the quantum level. but this is not hte same thing as saying there are no causes. as peter hodgsen notes(good book by the way) we may not be able to predict which atom is going to undergo radioactive decay in the case of each atome is driven by internal parameters eg the state of motinon of the necleons at a particular instant, and the quantum mechanical laws, this is eveidence for example i dont no lets say uranium and radiuum undergoing alpha decay cansistently turn into  intermeidate isotopes nad then elements like lead, not puddles of water. the inability to ascertain the case of change does no tjustify the conclusion that the change has no cause.

im leading you down this trail of cause and effect so wait. grter hermann wroth the limits of preditive calculability of future events have indeed turned out to be in principle incalcuable. " yet there is no couse of events for which no causes could be found in the frameworkd of the quantum mechanical formalism". because " quantum mechanism presupposes and calls upon an explanation bases on natural law also for events which are not predictively calculable. "gapless causelity is not only consistent with quantum mechanism, but is demonstrably presupposed by it.

also, the nobel prize winner julius schwinger obs that both classical and quantum physics assume the law of cause and effect, since they both hold that knowledge of the state of a system at one time gives knowledge of its state at a later time. so follow me, in any case, the principle that every phenonmenon and event has an explanation is as fundamental in quantum physics as it is in the rest of physics, it is not simply a presupposition of science or a thesis to be proven, it is rather a condition that has to be accepted if we are to do science. like it or not, the quantum physicist cannot say anything about a quantum state taht is not implicitly an attempt to explain it. even to say that there are no causes at the quantum level is to give an explanation, albeit a mistaken one, for quantum phenomena. when bohr offered his principle onf complementarity, he was trying to explain quantum phenomean. it could be said that this was a description not an explantion, but then it was a description that sought to explain. all quantum experiments and fomalisms are attempts  to explain quantum pheenomena. quantum theorists are often, in fact, driven by the search for symmetry. bizarre quantum phe like non-locality  my be bizarre from the viewpoint of conventional science but the non locality experiments actually re-introduce causality. we do not understand how one photon affects the other at such distances but we do know that one has an effect on the other.

now cause and effect is actually a meta scientific priciple like you have eluded to. science cannot prove it;science simply operates on the assumptions that it is valid. in the einstein-copenhagen debate on measurement and causality, capenhagen had the right premise but the wrong conclusion. einstined adopted cop conclusion as his premise and reached an equally flawsd conclusion. from the premise that exact measurement is not possible at the quantum leverl(uncertinty principle), copenhagen concluede that the law focause and effect does not apply there. this process of reasoning is obciously flawed because the exsitence of cause and effect between two phenomena does not requie us to believe that this relationship can be demonstrated by the rules of classical physics. einsteing, on the other hand, stated off with the premise that there can be no caus and effect if there is no exact measurement and concluded that acceptance of indeterminacy at the quantum level eliminateds causality and objectivity. here he fell into the copenhagen trap becasue he took exact observation, measurement  and prediction as criteria for cause and effet and reality.

adolf grunbaum who is an atheist observes that the so-called pair cration of a particle and antiparticle occures throught the conversion of other forms of energy, and he emphatically notes that this is not a creation out of nothing. the laws exsists to allow this to occur and i have already demostrated why there is truly has never been nothing, plus you cannot observe nothing. i have more if you like but i will save it but your argument has been put to bed and tucked in. also i would like you to read my thread in the metaphysics section at avant on this topic were i ask of any better arguments in history, it is the best answer. you are a weak minded atheist in the grand scheme of things and to deny god is to deny exsistence, however, is pantheism or theism correct is the question, i can show why pantheism is incorrect and theism is the one truth.

http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23897

if have the right to deny anything i say but i wont listen, because you my friend have no more understanding of quanta then what google can supply and shit on reasoning when you say the quantum vaccum creates something out of nothing. i wont outline the argument but finite has never exsisted nor has nothing, to deny this is ignorant and i can suggest some reading if you like. i do enjoy having debates with you but your arguments are ridiculous and you have no idea what meta physics implies and how science rests on this matrix. your materialist view is totally ignorant. good night.

[Necrosis]

first clubber lang now you, just wait for my whole argument were dismantle atheism and its ill logic. what logic leads you to believe god isnt all the things you say he is. you dont know what your talking about, i would enjoy this debate more if we could move from one topic to another without all the hold up when you assume i use the definition of nothing that only exsists in the mind, haha go read a book man, stop with the dumb arguments. again you dont know what nothing or infinty means just like clubber lang, it is impossble to conceptualize but has merit, you cling to materialism and science like it is all that exsists, when reason, logic and experience tells us otherwise. science looks to explain everything, do this tell me how thinking a thought comes before the neural firing. that is think of black right now and then tell me wether the thought or neural firing came first. the thought is the horse and the brain the cart my friend.

also, its funny you ask how a intangible god could create anything when einstein has already showed that this world is made of an intangible, undescribable entity known as energy. matter is condensed energy, which you cant touch or grasp, iron is mostly not there, as is the chair your sitting on. i would go further but will save it for later. atomic bomb is the release of this energy and matter is energy vice versa so it is intangible at the quantum level.

[Necrosis]

show me your reasoning that god is not everything you outlined, should be interesting to see how your argument stacks up with some of the greatest thinkers ever. im a pretty well mannered easy going guy but when you attack me and talk about ignorance it pisses me off like i have already said. i did it with clubber lang because his argument insulted my intelligence

[NeoSeminole]

alright, here is my refutation to your law of cause and effect.

objection 1: some effects do not require a cause. Quantum mechanics tells us that particles at the sub-atomic level behave without causation. You claim something must be responsible. However, no evidence for sub-quantum forces has ever been found. The forces ARE the result of quantum particles (e.g. strong forces are caused by gluons, not vice versa).

objection 2a: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This means the chain of causes of your future actions extend backwards to before you were born. In essence, your whole life is predetermined and free will doesn't exist. If you object that any of these causes is an isolated event, then you are implying an uncaused cause which violates the "law of cause and effect."

objection 2b: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This chain of causes may be traced back to the first cause. A familiar paradox arises - what caused the first cause? According to the "law of cause and effect," every cause must be caused by something else. If we assume there is an uncaused cause, then its premise is violated and the whole argument fails.

objection 3: the "law of cause and effect" postulates that a specific cause always leads to a specific effect (i.e. there may be some attribute X which always leads to some attribute Y). However, we have never observed two instances of X which led to two instances of Y. Every X is different in some respect from every other X. Likewise, every Y is different from every other Y. If you object that we may infer the same outcome when each X is exactly the same, then you are creating a definition for cause and effect that cannot be falsified. Since all you would have to do whenever someone challenges you is propose additional 'unknown' causes, this is not really a valid argument. It would be like me claiming "the universe was created by a black hole. We just don't understand all the factors that were involved" no matter how many objections are raised. Although this argument can never be falsified, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's true.

[NeoSeminole]

i do enjoy having debates with you but your arguments are ridiculous and you have no idea what meta physics implies and how science rests on this matrix.

You are wrong. Science may have at one time rested on the notion of cause and effect. However, this school of thought has long been abondoned by most scientists. Modern science attempts to understand the relationships between variables. For example, the equation F = ma is a mathematical relationship between measurable quantities. It says that force, mass and acceleration are related; it does not say that acceleration causes force or vice versa. It is also worth pointing out there is no "law of cause and effect" in science. Hmm, I wonder why...

Can you please keep the length of your posts to a minimum? I think it's safe to say that everybody has officially lost interest in this thread after your marathon posts. If you cannot express yourself clearly and concisely, then you are not the "super intellect" you claim to be. Some of your posts come across like the ramblings of a child trying to explain quantum mechanics.

[Necrosis]

you completely ignored everything i said as i demonstrated why there is cause and effect in quantum physics and it is obvious is daily life. i wrote a marathon post to completely destroy your notion of no cause and effect, by showing you what top physicist have to say and why there is cause and effect. your equation is explained away above if you can decipher what i said.

listen science rests on the assumptions of meta physics this is a fact, you can cry that it does not but that doesnt change the fact and i have demenstrated why while you refer to and equation that is descriptive, which i have already explained why it shows cause  and effect, if you cant comprehend that then i dont know how this can continue, you've been proven wrong, and you say im wrong, i got my material from three different books on quantum mechanics, about combined seperate conclusions about cause and effect and you proclaim there wrong hahahah, you dont have a clue what your talking about or what cause and effect entail.

heres another meta physical assumption that science rests on, that the world is rational and we can make sense of it. it is just as logical that it is rational, but we assume it is orderly and reductionable, your an outright fool to think meta physics doesnt apply to physics, they are melding son. sorry for the long posts but i have to fully defend my position.

[Necrosis]

your objections have been discussed above, see for further details. cause=effect, not vice versa, infinity did occur so what are you denying this pre mise. your refutation is already delt with, i dont know how to put it anymore clearly.