Friday, October 28, 2011

My apology on my comparison of a young atheist censor to Nazi Youth

Commentor Anonymous on my criticism of atheist Rhode Island high school student Jessica Ahlquist, who is suing her school district to force it to remove a small 50 year old prayer on a wall mural in the auditorium.

...And by the way - comparing a high school student who had the guts to stand for her principles with Nazi youth? You should be deeply, deeply ashamed of yourself. If you have an ounce of integrity, you need to apologize for this, as publicly as your initial comments were made...
Anonymous has a point. I concede.

Nazi Youth were German teens raised in pre-war and wartime Germany who were indoctrinated in Nazi ideology (such as censorship, centralized state power, and hatred of religious expression unacceptable to the state). The kids were organized in a system similar to the Boy Scouts (who were banned in Germany, just as atheists have tried to suppress Scouting in the United States). Many were conscripts, forced to join the organization under duress. They underwent strenuous physical and military training, and were subjected to intense social and ideological pressure to conform to Nazi ideology. Particular effort was made to sever sentimental ties to family and church and to inculcate a deep respect for the absolute power of the state. Failure to assent to Nazi ideology endangered their lives and the lives of their families.

Jessica Ahlquist is an American teen raised in the most prosperous and free nation on earth. She has been raised in a culture founded on respect for the rights and opinions of others. She has learned in school about the Constitutional guarantees of free exercise of religion and of freedom of speech. As an atheist who holds a minority view, she has been the beneficiary of the deep tolerance Americans have for diversity of opinion, respectful discourse, and the free exchange of ideas.

In her first public act as a young adult, Jessica initiated federal litigation against her classmates and neighbors in an effort to censor their expression of religious belief. She has asserted in court documents that the mere presence of a Christian prayer on a wall causes her such intense suffering as to warrant removal of the prayer by force, irrespective of the opinions of others. Her litigation is based on the principle of "a wall of separation between church and state", which is found nowhere in the Constitution, but is fundamental to jurisprudence advocated by nativists, anti-Catholic bigots, and the Ku Klux Klan.

But you're right, Anonymous. My comparison between the atheist high school student raised in a free society who sues her friends and neighbors to censor them and German children conscripted and indoctrinated in an odious totalitarian ideology in the midst of war is deeply unjust. I hope my apology is taken in the spirit in which I intend it.

My apologies to Nazi Youth.

133 comments:

  1. Sweet, I was not acquainted with the concept of "fulfilling Godwin's law for Jesus."

    ReplyDelete
  2. What about this law:

    When an atheist gets painted in the corner by an argument, he will inevitably use ineptitudes or insults as a defense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and when a religious fascist like you has his privilege and power threatened, he throws a temper tantrum and plays the victim

      Delete
  3. This is great. Now when I argue about the aptness of Nazi comparison proffered by the left and right I can point to Dr. Egnors apology to the Nazi youth.

    Speaking of Nazi youth, I wonder if the Pope’s recent embrace of income re-distribution is a result of the lingering effects of his Nazi indoctrination.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kudos, Doctor.
    100% Agree.
    The Nazi kids had an excuse...of sorts.
    This kid lost her Mum. That's sad, but we ALL lose our parents. That leads me to the ADULTS in her life, who I think are USING her grief to advance their own ends. That is the real victim-hood of this girl. These adults? 'Parasitic' is the word that comes to mind.

    @Pépé,
    Think of a debate where one side (theologians and philosophers) are trying to express their own experiences, basic natural laws, life, death and related history in terms of meaning and purpose. They prepare arguments by attacking their own ideas and de-constructing them. They even debate among themselves....
    On the other side you have the Atheists who are see this as a business or team sport type model and cry 'FOUL' every-time they hear or read something that does not fit their 'world view' (monistic and monolithic positivist materialism).
    In terms of real sport such as hockey, soccer/football this behaviour would be described as 'diving'. Trying to break a a good offence by pretending one of the players has broken some rule or 'law.'
    An interesting note that ties this observation into the post: This 'calling foul' (so and so's laws, such and such fallacy, the insults etc) are all designed to SILENCE the other side, NOT counter it. That is a very telling aspect of this STYLE of argument: They have no substance, no rebuttals, no legs to stand on...so they 'dive'.
    With this Godwin's Law specifically, the idea is to UNLINK their ideological culpability in the Genocides of the 20th century. No 'sorry about that'. Instead the Atheist calls 'foul'.

    A personal note: In all my years of researching for the Branch, the people who quote Godwin's law the MOST are NEO NAZIS themselves... but I had best not mention THAT, it would violate Godwin's VERY convenient 'law'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hilarious. Egnor compares a schoolgirl to Nazi Youth for trying to uphold the law, then apologizes to Nazi Youth for making the comparison.

    I'm starting to think that Egnor's priest literally screwed Egnor's brains out when he was an altar boy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. With this Godwin's Law specifically, the idea is to UNLINK their ideological culpability in the Genocides of the 20th century. No 'sorry about that'. Instead the Atheist calls 'foul'.

    Yep, "foul" is an appropriate word. As an atheist, I will never say "sorry about the genocides" because I have no responsibility for something that happened before I was even born.

    You are disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @troy
    Hilarious. Egnor compares a schoolgirl to Nazi Youth for trying to uphold the law, then apologizes to Nazi Youth for making the comparison.

    It's not hilarious. Egnor and his pals don't make me laugh anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  8. " This 'calling foul' (so and so's laws, such and such fallacy, the insults etc) are all designed to SILENCE the other side, NOT counter it."

    You're right.

    Here's a counter.

    Michael's incessant connecting of atheism with totalitarianism is tiresome and false.

    Hitler's Germany was not remotely atheist. While the Nazis imprisoned many people who held power that threatened theirs, including many priests, they did so in the firm belief they were doing God's will. Hitler often invoked God in his writings and speeches, and the army even carried the slogan "Gott mit uns" on their uniforms.

    Stalin, Mao and Kim Jong Il were not atheists who rejected religion and the supernatural. Quite the contrary - they embrace religion and actively created state religions centered on themselves. They actively spread myths that they were either divine or possessed of supernatural abilities, and they actively encouraged worship. And like theocracies throughout history, from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan all the way back to the Kingdom of Judah, they used their state religions (Naziism, Communism, Islam, Judaism) to control the state, economy, art, morality and the private lives of the citizens.

    Michael Egnor's dreaded 20th century "totalitarian regimes" were theocracies with the benefit of mass media and technology.

    What's more, dictators don't act alone. Hitler and Stalin did not stand guard at their camps. Mao did not himself drive the trucks that took the grain away from the villages. A vast portion of the population of each country was complicit in exercising the will of the government - from digging the graves to keeping the books to informing on neighbors. And the overwhelming majority of those people were raised under the influence of religion. So why is it that religion, which is meant to teach us how to live a good and correct life, failed so utterly to arm the people against totalitarian rule.

    The simple fact is this: true atheism - a rejection of the divine or supernatural, be it God or Allah or Stalin or Mao - borne of probing skepticism, is a more effective bulwark against totalitarianism than Christianity has ever been or will ever be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "...just as atheists have tried to suppress Scouting in the United States)"
    What? The controversy (one of several, actually) is that the BSoA discriminate against atheists (and agnostics) while being sponsored by government entities, and while using public funding/lands.

    "Jessica Ahlquist is an American teen raised in the most prosperous and free nation on earth."
    Estonia?

    "Her litigation is based on the principle of 'a wall of separation between church and state which is found nowhere in the Constitution..."
    It's not literally there, granted, but if not literally there disqualifies it, here's a list of other things not literally written in Constitution.
    The principle, however, is. One explained to you (and ignored), including a supporting link to some writings by James "I wrote the First Amendment" Madison supporting it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @troy:

    [I'm starting to think that Egnor's priest literally screwed Egnor's brains out when he was an altar boy.]

    That's a knee-slapper. Those Catholic pervert jokes really crack-em up at the Klavern Kouncil meetings.

    Why, Troy, would you respond to my argument that anti-Catholic bigotry motivates atheists by repeating.. anti-Catholic bigotry? Leave aside the factual nonsense. It's just rhetorically stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shut up about bigotry egnor. You make bigoted statements about atheists all the time.

      Delete
  11. @anon:

    [It's not hilarious. Egnor and his pals don't make me laugh anymore.]

    It was never our intention to make you laugh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it was your intention to be a willfully ignorant dipshit.

      Delete
  12. @modus:

    [The principle, however, is. One explained to you (and ignored), including a supporting link to some writings by James "I wrote the First Amendment" Madison supporting it.]

    There are many different viewpoints on the Establishment Clause, although the Clause itself is quite clear, and only prohibits an official federal church.

    I find it noteworthy that atheists choose the interpretation of the Establishment Clause shared by nativists, anti-Catholic bigots, and the KKK.

    So I note it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "There are many different viewpoints on the Establishment Clause..."
    Obviously. Your crass Constitutional literalism is one of the wrong ones.

    "...although the Clause itself is quite clear, and only prohibits an official federal church."
    Madison disagrees.

    "I find it noteworthy that atheists choose the interpretation of the Establishment Clause shared by nativists, anti-Catholic bigots, and the KKK."
    Obviously. When somebody unpleasant likes something, it's ruined for everybody else. That's why I had my dog put down once I found out that Hitler had one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Yep, "foul" is an appropriate word."
    Glad we agree and that a sports analogy was understandable to an ... academic.

    "As an atheist, I will never say "sorry about the genocides" "
    But the Christians, Muslims, and Jews are supposed to, right? The truth is you lot do NOT know how to admit error or culpability. Introspection is alien to your positivist GARBAGE philosophy.
    Are you suggesting State Atheism ended BEFORE you were born? Tell that to the 50K + folks interred at Camp 22, just a SINGLE concentration camp in NK.


    "You are disgusting."
    Bah bah! Bleat away.
    If I disgust weaklings like you, I am doing something correct.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But the Christians, Muslims, and Jews are supposed to, right?

    No. They're just supposed to claim that religion is the ultimate source of morality, because it's obviously wrong.

    And what the hell is my "positivist GARBAGE philosophy"?

    Tell that to the 50K + folks interred at Camp 22, just a SINGLE concentration camp in NK.

    Atheism is merely the refusal to believe extraordinary claims without evidence. It has nothing to do with North Korea and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Edit: I obviously wanted to write "They're just supposed to stop claiming that religion is the ultimate source of morality".

    ReplyDelete
  17. @anon:

    [Atheism is merely the refusal to believe extraordinary claims without evidence.]

    "Everything came from nothing" is the most extraordinary claim possible. Your evidence?

    [It has nothing to do with North Korea and you know it.]

    Right. And Islam has nothing to do with Iran. And Buddhism has nothing to do with Tibet. And Catholicism has nothing to do with Vatican City.

    Atheists are gutless cowards, unwilling to even acknowledge the invariable political outcomes of their ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is it correct to infer that, given a chance, Michael Egnor would rather side with the Nazis than with the Democrats?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Everything came from nothing" is the most extraordinary claim possible. Your evidence?

    Open a physics textbook some time. Oh wait, that would require learning something about reality, and you're apparently too stupid for that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Egnor demonstrates one truth of debate: when you can't actually come up with arguments that make any sense, call your opponent a Nazi and hope that no one notices that you haven't got a leg the stand on.

    Lacking any actual foundation for his arguments, Egnor's gotten quite good at calling people Nazi's. He's not so good at getting people to notice that he doesn't have anything to back up his arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  21. ""Everything came from nothing" is the most extraordinary claim possible. Your evidence?"

    Name the physicist that says everything came from nothing.

    As for extraordinary claims:

    "Volcanoes don't just happen, they're caused by angry gods." Wrong
    "Hurricanes don't just happen, they're cause by angry gods." Wrong
    "Species don't just happen, they were created in their current form by God." Wrong
    "That person's seizures can't be just from their brains, they must be possessed." Wrong

    The list goes on and on: the vast number of natural and human events attributed to divine/supernatural forces, proved later to have perfectly natural, unguided, un-intelligent causes.

    In fact, it's happened so often that people like you have had to retreat to the creation of the universe to find a natural event that is still poorly understood enough that you can still find a gap for your god.

    There - that's not proof, but it is about a million points of evidence, against which you cannot cite a single example of a natural event definitively determined to have a divine cause.

    That's why you need faith - to believe in something for which there is no evidence. If you had evidence, it wouldn't be faith, it would be understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  22. CrusadeREX said: "Tell that to the 50K + folks interred at Camp 22, just a SINGLE concentration camp in NK."

    North Korea isn't an atheist regime.

    atheist: there is no god.

    Kim Jong-Il: I am a God.

    Pope: I speak for God.

    Which two of these are most similar?

    ReplyDelete
  23. @RickK:

    [Name the physicist that says everything came from nothing.]

    Where did everything come from? Stop evading the question.

    [Volcanoes don't just happen...]

    Modern science arose entirely from Christian philosophy. Atheism played no role, and plays no role. "Shit happened" is of no value to science.

    [The list goes on and on: the vast number of natural and human events attributed to divine/supernatural forces, proved later to have perfectly natural, unguided, un-intelligent causes.]

    You confuse secondary causes (physical laws) with primary causes (ground for existence).

    [In fact, it's happened so often that people like you have had to retreat to the creation of the universe to find a natural event that is still poorly understood enough that you can still find a gap for your god.]

    "People like me" gave you modern science. Atheists gave us totalitarianism. Lysenko is the paradigm of atheist science.

    [There - that's not proof, but it is about a million points of evidence, against which you cannot cite a single example of a natural event definitively determined to have a divine cause.]

    All natural events have secondary causes (natural causes) and primary causes (God). Aquinas 1,2,3,4 and 5. Get an education.

    [That's why you need faith - to believe in something for which there is no evidence. If you had evidence, it wouldn't be faith, it would be understanding.]

    All knowledge is an amalgam of faith and understanding. You positivistic foolishness was abandoned by thoughtful thinkers a century ago.

    ReplyDelete
  24. As is ubiquitous in all his posts, anon reveals his generalized and rather glaring stupidity and profound ignorance-based prejudice.

    Just look at this,
    Doc says, "Everything came from nothing" is the most extraordinary claim possible. Your evidence?"

    Anon incredibly responds with, "Open a physics textbook some time."

    Just unreal. Truly deserves a huge ROTFLMAO. Like any real physics book in the world supports nothing creating everything, and with evidence.

    Anon you're one sore loser.
    -----

    Great response Doc. I agree with your public "apology".

    However, in all fairness, little Jessica would be better served by being compared to Mao's Red Guards - they were much more steeped in fanatical atheism.
    Yet unlike poor, enslaved to too much freedom and riches, Jessica most of them had little choice and never knew freedom of speech anyway, so ...

    Jessica must be taking her lame anti-freedom tricks from the little red book.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You confuse secondary causes (physical laws) with primary causes (ground for existence).

    There is no evidence for your "ground for existence".

    I know. You'll say "it's metaphysics! it doesn't need evidence!". Which means that your fairy story has no evidence supporting it.

    In other words, you're hypocritically asking for evidence when you have failed to provide any yourself. Lacking evidence, the scientist says "we don't know". The ignorant buffoon says "Aquinas solved it!"

    ReplyDelete
  26. All natural events have secondary causes (natural causes) and primary causes (God).

    Evidence please.

    Oh right. You have none. Just assumptions and suppositions.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Like any real physics book in the world supports nothing creating everything, and with evidence.

    You seem to need to open one and illuminate yourself. Perhaps you should figure out what physicists actually think rather than arguing that they think "something came from nothing".

    ReplyDelete
  28. @anon:

    The evidence for primary cause is logical, not empirical. The logic is presented rather nicely by Aquinas 1,2,3,4,5.

    Explain where everything came from.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ["People like me" gave you modern science.]

    Yeah, right. People like you just shoot the breeze. They can't come up with anything new. Monday morning quarterbacks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @anon:

    Describe the role atheism played in the rise of modern science. Names, specifics please.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If there is a gutless coward and a totalitarian here, it is Egnor himself. Egnor attacks a schoolgirl that had the courage to stand up against an unlawful endorsement of totalitarian superstition by the board of a public school.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You hate modern science, doc. You think theory of evolution is garbage and you're 100% sure global warming does not exist. And you ask stupid questions like "where did everything come from?" Scientists are not in the business of answering stupid questions.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The evidence for primary cause is logical, not empirical.

    In other words, you have nothing but assumptions and suppositions.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @anon:

    Where did everything come from?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Looks like troy is again painting himself in the corner by giving confirmation of the atheist law cited above!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anon and friends keep spewing forth their inane statements like spit from a baseball pro.

    "Laughable" comes to mind but pathetic seems more reasonable.

    Anon complains,
    "You seem to need to open one and illuminate yourself. Perhaps you should figure out what physicists actually think rather than arguing that they think "something came from nothing"

    Illuminate? Wow, getting metaphysical on me there huh? LOL

    What physicists really think huh?

    You mean like S Hawking?

    He said, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."

    How about Paul Davies of Arizona State University who wrote, "Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific."

    Wow, how's that for inane drone reasoning from a highly educated fool?

    Or how about Edward P. Tryon, "So I conjectured that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness."

    "In this picture, the universe came into existence as a fluctuation in the quantum-mechanical vacuum. Such a hypothesis leads to a view of creation in which the entire universe is an accident."
    "Our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time."
    'What Made the World?" New Scientist, Vol. 101, Mar. 8, 1984

    Deep that. Quantum fluctuation of what exactly? Nothing, again.

    "...[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void ... the earth and humanity are not conscious creations but an accident ... it is not sufficient merely to say, 'you can't get something from nothing.'" Victor Stenger, 1987, Free Inquiry, Summer, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 26-27

    HINTs: The energy of nothing is nothing. Nothing doesn't exist.

    This isn't hard; unless you've been brain washed in the atheist secular humanist education system.

    There you have it. From the horses mouth. Nothing created everything, by accident.

    Anything at all, no matter how stupid, as long as no God is involved. Such unhealthy hatred of God is telling indeed.

    You are mere accidents atheists.
    So tell us, why should anyone give a damn what accidents "think"?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Michael, I'll copy your format of statement and response. But forgive me if I occasionally put more effort into my responses than your one-liners.

    [Where did everything come from? Stop evading the question.]

    I don't know, and neither do you. You are assuming there was "nothing" because that fits with your faith that has as a starting assumption that only God can create something from nothing.

    Newton said only God could have set the planets in motion because he could not think of another mechanism. His imagination and his science could not conceive of cosmic dust, angular momentum and billions of years. So he filled in with the amorphous concept of "God". Hundreds of thousands of people have done the same thing throughout history, and they've been proved wrong time and again. How are you different than them? What makes you right in the same way Newton was wrong?

    At least I'm honest enough to say "I don't know" rather than making up an answer.

    [You confuse secondary causes (physical laws) with primary causes (ground for existence).]

    You keep avoiding my point. You are pointing at the birth of our universe as the beginning of all existence and saying "God directly did this". Other people in the past have pointed at the creation of the Earth and said "God directly did this" because they couldn't conceive some something beyond the Earth and the heavens that surrounded the Earth.

    The fact that there was (1) more to the question than they could conceive, and (2) God has yet to be the definitive answer to any of it, are both points of evidence that support the conclusion that you're probably just as wrong as they were.

    Or, to put it more simply, they used God to explain that which was beyond their understanding, just as you've done. But each time humanity's range of understanding has increased, the answer has not been God. So what are the odds that THIS TIME you're right given all those other people who came before you who were wrong?

    You have the hubris to assume you're right. I have the evidence to bet that you're wrong.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  38. ...

    ["People like me" gave you modern science. Atheists gave us totalitarianism. Lysenko is the paradigm of atheist science.]

    There's that hubris again. You ignore the Chinese, the Muslims and the Greeks, to name but a few of the cultures who contributed huge amounts to our understanding of the natural world. And you're telling ME to get an education?

    Lysenko was the pet scientist of a dogmatic ideologue, sort of like the Discovery Institute fellows working to forward the agenda of Christian Dominionists. (1) as my earlier posts indicated, Stalin's regime was not atheist - the state religion was Communism with Stalin as the divine leader; and (2) using your logic, can we then conclude that Young Earth Creationists are the paradigm of Christian science?

    [All natural events have secondary causes (natural causes) and primary causes (God). Aquinas 1,2,3,4 and 5. Get an education.]

    And you don't know what event(s) directly set off the Big Bang any more than a natural philosopher in 950 AD knew what event(s) directly created the Earth. So you're jumping to the same conclusion he did with precisely the same likelihood of being correct.

    [All knowledge is an amalgam of faith and understanding. You positivistic foolishness was abandoned by thoughtful thinkers a century ago.]

    At least I'm willing to admit to the limits of my confidence rather than falling back on the same answer that has an unbroken record of failure for over 2000 years.

    Religion is powerful and useful, and can be used for good or ill. Human nature responds very well to a compelling narrative, and some religions provide quite good narratives. But there is no concept in human history that has failed more completely than the concept of divine or supernatural causation.

    And if by positivist, you mean that I believe that "an idea with supporting evidence is more likely to be true than an idea without supporting evidence", then I'll wear that badge proudly. Becuase without such thinking, your profession and many others wouldn't exist.

    But then, I have no doubt, Michael, that your definition of "thoughtful thinkers" basically means any thinker with whom you agree.

    ReplyDelete
  39. [Where did everything come from?]

    If you ask the stupid question twice, it does not become any less stupid. In fact, it becomes more stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Michael Egnor: "Where did everything come from."

    Approach A: "God did it"

    Approach B: "I don't know, let's go find out."

    Now, how many of history's mysteries have been answered by Approach A, and how many by Approach B?

    ReplyDelete
  41. RickK:

    [Michael, I'll copy your format of statement and response. But forgive me if I occasionally put more effort into my responses than your one-liners.]

    Verbosity isn't effort. You give convoluted answers because you're flailing.

    You obviously know nothing of the classical proofs for God's existence. I'm not your tutor, although I've put up an occasional post (http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/08/aquinas-first-way.html) to help people who are genuinely interested learn something. That obviously doesn't include you.

    Your grade-school philosophy makes me laugh. The sad thing is that our educational system turns out such ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @anon
    If you ask the stupid question twice, it does not become any less stupid. In fact, it becomes more stupid.
    You have now officially join troy in the red corner of self-deception!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Michael said: "Your grade-school philosophy makes me laugh. The sad thing is that our educational system turns out such ignorance."

    Ah, ok - this is how you avoid answering. Well, if you want to slink away muttering insults over your shoulder, hey - it's your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @megnor
    The sad thing is that our educational system turns out such ignorance.

    So true!

    Secularism is our society cancer…

    Your blog is the cure!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. religious fascism like the kind you and egnor peddle are a cancer on our society. atheism is the cure

      Delete
  45. [You obviously know nothing of the classical proofs for God's existence.]

    Philosophers can prove anything but they hardly matter.

    ReplyDelete
  46. You obviously know nothing of the classical proofs for God's existence.

    "Proofs" based upon raw assumptions that don't seem to match reality. That is excusable for Aquinas - he was living several hundred years ago. For someone now who claims to be educated it is inexcusable.

    Can something come from nothing? Yes. It happens all the time. Look up paired virtual particles in vacuo some time. Aquinas' assumptions fall apart in the face of reality.

    Can somethingcause itself? Maybe. If (and it is a big if) the recent experiments showing neutrinos traveling faster than light are confirmed, then things can move backwards in time. And if they can, Aquinas' assumptions about causation don't match reality. Of course, Aquinas' assumptions about causation are already contradicted by quantum physics, but you've glossed over that for a while now.

    When you build your "logic" on assumptions that you don't bother to test, it proves nothing. Because reality isn't obliged to conform to your assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Gary H said: The energy of nothing is nothing. Nothing doesn't exist.

    So, what evidence do you base this statement on? You've decided that five prominent physicists don't know their own subject. On exactly what basis do you make this claim?

    Oh right. You've got nothing to back up your mouth. You just pulled it out of your ass. How very convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @anon:

    [Can something come from nothing? Yes. It happens all the time. Look up paired virtual particles in vacuo some time. Aquinas' assumptions fall apart in the face of reality.]

    A quantum vacuum isn't nothing. It is very much something.

    [Can somethingcause itself? Maybe. If (and it is a big if) the recent experiments showing neutrinos traveling faster than light are confirmed, then things can move backwards in time. And if they can, Aquinas' assumptions about causation don't match reality.]

    Aquinas' proofs assume infinite past, and have nothing to do with forward sequence in time. Aquinas demonstrated teleology, which is reverse causation in time (the future causes the past)

    [Of course, Aquinas' assumptions about causation are already contradicted by quantum physics, but you've glossed over that for a while now.]

    Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics is the best paradigm for quantum physics, which includes teleology (quantum entanglement) and the potency-act relation (quantum indeterminacy).

    The best reference for this is New Essentialism (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Nature-Guide-New-Essentialism/dp/0773524738) by Ellis.

    Get an education.

    ReplyDelete
  49. [Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics is the best paradigm for quantum physics, which includes teleology (quantum entanglement) and the potency-act relation (quantum indeterminacy).]

    Don't pretend you have the slightest idea about either quantum entanglement nor quantum indeterminacy.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics is the best paradigm for quantum physics\

    You are so funny when you try to do physics. Your ignorance is appalling.

    ReplyDelete
  51. A quantum vacuum isn't nothing.

    Physicists would disagree with you. But what do they know? They only study it for a living. I'm sure they are all engaged in a worldwide conspiracy to make you look like an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anyone who asserts:

    Can something come from nothing? Yes.

    Can something cause itself? Maybe.

    Simply lacks a basic hold on reality, and as such, has nothing whatsoever pertinent to say about physics, metaphysics, theism, or anything else that the sane might want to discuss.

    It really is that simple, and such people deserve little more than pity. Dialog with such insanity is neither possible, nor desirable.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Nothing is a rather vague term. Arguing about such things generally gets one nowhere. This why philosophy isn't particularly useful.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @anon:

    [Nothing is a rather vague term. Arguing about such things generally gets one nowhere. This why philosophy isn't particularly useful.]

    How is it possible to pack such wrong into 3 sentences?

    Nothing is a very precise term. It means lack of existence. It has no properties, no essences, no agency. It can't cause, or be the source of, etc.

    Arguing about such things is the basis for all philosophy and knowledge. Genuine insight into the world is dependent on understanding such fundamental ideas.

    Philosophy isn't merely "useful", it is unavoidable. Atheists and materialists do philosophy just as much as theists do. But atheist philosophy is bad philosophy-- poorly thought out, self-refuting, lacking explanatory power, etc.

    EVERYTHING is philosophy. The only question is whether it is good or bad philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  55. ‘Aquinas demonstrated teleology, which is reverse causation in time (the future causes the past)”

    All of our most fundamental theories including general relativity and quantum mechanics are entirely time revisable. Describe any sequence events with theses fundamental theories and the time reversed sequence is just as valid. The only way to even distinguish the past from the future without experiencing the visceral sensation of moving through time is to examine the changing nature of the arrangement of particles in confined volumes to derive the systems changing entropy, and then assume time is moving in the direction of increased entropy based on statistical arguments. Please do tell Doctor, how Aquinas’s demonstration of reverse causation informs this notion of this thermodynamic arrow of time.

    The fact is, Aquinas didn’t know any more about the nature of time than you. If he had indeed demonstrated that the future causes the past then he must have had some secret knowledge that if we could rediscover, would revolutionize physics. Unfortunately all Aquinas provided was some cleaver medieval metaphysics that contributes nothing to our understanding of the nature of time. The only thing a modern physicist could gain from studying Aquinas is a bit of historical perspective.

    Challenging people to “explain where everything came from” simply displays your lack of knowledge regarding state of modern scientific thinking on the subject. It’s not an intelligent question. Nor is “explain how something can come from nothing” for it presumes that a state of nothingness can exist. Nothing may be a good description for what’s in your pocket, but the fact that we are having this discussion should make it fairly obvious that at what you call nothing must at a minimum have the potentiality for something. That something could be anything from a plank sized quanta of inflation field, too the far more improbable necessary super-being who’s greatest desire is to have you worship him, but it’s not nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @anon:

    Nothing can't have potential, or anything, because nothing is non-existence.

    Basic metaphysics.

    Get an education.

    ReplyDelete
  57. [Nothing is a very precise term. It means lack of existence. It has no properties, no essences, no agency. It can't cause, or be the source of, etc.]

    This is the A-grade bullshit that makes philosophy the butt of jokes. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an entry on Nothingness that begins thus:

    -----------------------------------------------------
    1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

    Well, why not? Why expect nothing rather than something? No experiment could support the hypothesis ‘There is nothing’ because any observation obviously implies the existence of an observer.
    -----------------------------------------------------

    The entry runs some 10,000 words, but it does not even answer the question whether there is any nothingness. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Michael,

    I don't know whether I can trust your definition of 'nothing' after you got the definition of 'imaginary' so 100% wrong.

    A proton consists of two up-quarks (with charge +2/3) and one down-quark (with charge -1/3), giving a charge of +1. But most of the mass of a proton consists of 'nothing', a sea of virtual particles, quark/antiquark pairs and gluons, which flash into and out of existence in Planck time (a vanishingly short time), so they can be said never to exist.

    The Large Hadron Collider, costing 9 billion dollars to build, is designed to smash two beams of protons traveling at almost light velocity in opposite directions into each other, with the aim of colliding one virtual particle in one proton with its antiparticle in the other proton, with the rest of both protons continuing on their course undisturbed. The aim is to see what particles result from the collision; a case of something coming from nothing.

    Philosophy is only deductive reasoning. Theres no effort made to check the initial premise against reality. Science is inductive reasoning. Science produces theories and models based on what we initially know about nature, and then proceeds to make predictions about what might be found, as with the LHC, if the models or theories are correct.

    You never manage to do that with your hylemorphic dualism.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The Nothingness entry is a blast. It shows that contemporary philosophers are smart enough not to take themselves too seriously:

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Accordingly, scholars writing in the aftermath of the condemnation of 1277 proposed various recipes for creating vacuums. One scheme was to freeze a sphere filled with water. After the water contracted into ice, a vacuum would form at the top.

    Aristotelians replied that the sphere would bend at its weakest point. When the vacuists stipulated that the sphere was perfect, the rejoinder was that this would simply prevent the water from turning into ice.

    Neither side appears to have tried out the recipe. If either had, then they would have discovered that freezing water expands rather than contracts.

    To contemporary thinkers, this dearth of empirical testing is bizarre. The puzzle is intensified by the fact that the medievals did empirically test many hypotheses, especially in optics.
    -------------------------------------------------------------

    ReplyDelete
  60. But most of the mass of a proton consists of 'nothing', a sea of virtual particles, quark/antiquark pairs and gluons, which flash into and out of existence in Planck time (a vanishingly short time), so they can be said never to exist.

    That which never exists cannot flash out of existence. You refute yourself in a single sentence.

    The Large Hadron Collider, costing 9 billion dollars to build, is designed to smash two beams of protons traveling at almost light velocity in opposite directions into each other, with the aim of colliding one virtual particle in one proton with its antiparticle in the other proton, with the rest of both protons continuing on their course undisturbed. The aim is to see what particles result from the collision; a case of something coming from nothing.

    Yes, indeed. Hundreds of man-years of work, $9 billion of equipment, and a couple of virtual particles is "nothing".

    But only to the insane.

    ReplyDelete
  61. That which never exists cannot flash out of existence.

    And your basis for claiming this is?

    Oh right, you don't have one. You just pulled it out of your ass. As usual.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Nothing can't have potential, or anything, because nothing is non-existence.

    And your evidence for this is?

    Oh right. You don't have any. You just pulled it out of your ass. As usual.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Simply lacks a basic hold on reality, and as such, has nothing whatsoever pertinent to say about physics, metaphysics, theism, or anything else that the sane might want to discuss.

    And your basis for asserting this is?

    Oh right. You don't have any. You just pulled it out of your ass. As usual.

    ReplyDelete
  64. That which never exists cannot flash out of existence.

    And your basis for claiming this is?


    An understanding of the terms "existence" and "flash out of".

    That, sanity, and an IQ above room temperature establish my basis for claiming this.

    To "flash out of" a condition is to cease being in that condition. In this case the condition being flashed out of is "existence". A thing must have existence to flash out of existence.

    All of this should be non-controversial and crystal clear to all but the insane and atheists (but I repeat myself).

    What is your major malfunction?

    ReplyDelete
  65. I was going to write a response to something on by the 'atheists', but all I see is avoidance.
    Avoidance of history, physics, reason, philosophy, and political reality.
    We may read from our monist pals that things pop in and out of existence from 'nothing'...by accident. We read that North Korea is NOT an atheist state - and that the HUNDREDS of thousands of folks interred there are not of any consequence.
    So really, besides the USUAL repetitive banality-as-epiphany stuff what is there to talk about?

    Here is the only point I feel is worth reiterating:
    This child lost her Mum recently and her grief and her 'dark moment' are being exploited by very cynical people with a POLITICAL agenda. Her pain is being twisted into anger and hate for the sake of POWER and INFLUENCE.
    Is that how Atheists wish themselves and their ideas to be looked upon? As pretentious, totalitarian censors?
    I hope so, because that is what is on display.

    @Pépé- that would make a good bumper or fridge sticker :P

    ReplyDelete
  66. I will just boil down the argument of the athiests for those readers who cannot get past the dead falls of illogic and rapids of irrationality:
    First the profound
    Why does the universe exist?
    Why not?

    and then the explanatory
    How did we get everything from nothing?
    Shit happens.

    and then finally, the ever inspirational
    What am I? What is my purpose?
    An accident. You do not have purpose, or meaning - nothing does.

    ReplyDelete
  67. [First the profound
    Why does the universe exist?
    How did we get everything from nothing? ]

    REX,

    These may be profound questions and one may be able to come up with very good answers. Unfortunately, there is no way to check whether the answers are correct. You may accept an answer on faith, but that is all you can hope to get. I am glad that you find your choices convincing, but don't be surprised if others do not. It's a matter of faith and beliefs are just that.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I will just boil down the argument of the thiests for those readers who cannot get past the dead falls of illogic and rapids of irrationality:
    First the profound
    Why does the universe exist?
    Since everything can't come from nothing, God created it.

    and then the explanatory
    How can God come from nothing?
    Because Aquinas said so, and also the Bible and Jesus died for your sins and science is based on Christianity, unlike Darwinist pseudo-science.

    and then finally, the ever inspirational
    I don't believe your God is real because there is no evidence for his existence.
    You have no morality and you're an evil totalitarian and you support KKK, North Korea and the Nazis. Did you know that Stalin and Pol Pot embraced your ideology?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anon,
    Pathetic.
    You guys can even reciprocate you're so crippled by ideology. Thanks for driving the point home, Anon. The reader will note he did not rebut a SINGLE point, but rather projected his 'stuff' onto the theists.

    Tit for tit is best you can do, ANON? LMAO
    Maybe you're a bit of a boob? ....Or maybe not long off the boob?
    Anon, you cannot even get the SIMPLE questions right correct.

    For the reader, here are the correct QUESTIONS with the corrected answers from a theist perspective.

    Why does the universe exist?
    For the purpose(s) of the Creator, God, or Prime Mover. For LIFE.

    How did we get everything from nothing?
    Since only NOTHING can come from NOTHING, and SOMETHING must come from SOMETHING, an intelligent external force Began or CREATED time, space, and the incredibly complex and infinitely improbable balances and various 'purposes' and potential required to maintain 'existence' or the 'cosmos' (IE Creation). This creator continues to do so by introducing the information and forces required to do so:'The Word'.

    What am I? What is my purpose?
    You are a man or woman, a shepherd of all life on Earth. An important, rational creature designed by a loving creator. Your general purpose is to avoid evil and sin, and to promote goodness and tolerance. To live, and live and DIE as well as you can. Your individual purpose will be gradually revealed to you as your life progresses and finally transcends in what we call 'death'. In my faith this purpose is heavily connected with 'Love'.


    You may now return to your regular bed-wetting, Anon.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "In my faith this purpose is heavily connected with 'Love'.

    You may now return to your regular bed-wetting, Anon."


    LOL!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  71. "an intelligent external force Began or CREATED time, space"

    "SOMETHING must come from SOMETHING"

    OK:

    1) Why must the force be intelligent? Species come from evolution, and evolution is not intelligent. So why must the force be intelligent?

    2) Since this force is "something", what created it?

    Simple questions.

    But don't write more than one sentence to answer them. Michael says that taking more than one line to answer a question is "flailing", right before he refers you to Aquinas who was well known for his terse, one-line answers to big questions.

    ReplyDelete
  72. You are a man or woman, a shepherd of all life on Earth. An important, rational creature designed by a loving creator. Your general purpose is to avoid evil and sin, and to promote goodness and tolerance. To live, and live and DIE as well as you can. Your individual purpose will be gradually revealed to you as your life progresses and finally transcends in what we call 'death'. In my faith this purpose is heavily connected with 'Love'.

    So when you call people who don't share your myths totalitarians and compare them with mass murderers, you promote goodness and tolerance?

    ReplyDelete
  73. @anon:

    [So when you call people who don't share your myths totalitarians and compare them with mass murderers, you promote goodness and tolerance?]

    Most people who accept Christianity aren't totalitarians-- e.g. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

    Atheists have a quite obvious and well-documented propensity to totalitarianism. Every formally atheist government has been totalitarian.

    It's not an accusation. It's an historical observation.

    ReplyDelete
  74. erratum:

    I meant "Most people who don't accept Christianity aren't totalitarians..."

    ReplyDelete
  75. [Most people who don't accept Christianity aren't totalitarians-- e.g. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

    Atheists have a quite obvious and well-documented propensity to totalitarianism. Every formally atheist government has been totalitarian.]

    Nice sleight of hand, doc. It's not peoples who are totalitarian, it's governments. You are one dishonest hack.

    ReplyDelete
  76. You're right. All atheist governments are totalitarian. Thanks for the correction.

    ReplyDelete
  77. The vast majority of governments to date have been totalitarian. Including those which can be regarded as Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @anon:

    [The vast majority of governments to date have been totalitarian. Including those which can be regarded as Christian.]

    No. What a stupid thing to say.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Your response is pretty emotional, doc, but you offer no counter arguments.

    Take Russia before 1917. It was ruled by the Tsars who had absolute power. Christianity was its official religion. Yet it was totalitarian, with censorship, surveillance, and media control.

    Take Spain, Germany, Italy, or pretty much any of the European nations before the 20th century and see how much of a democracy it was.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Atheists have a quite obvious and well-documented propensity to totalitarianism. Every formally atheist government has been totalitarian.

    It's not an accusation. It's an historical observation.


    Not believing in ridiculous superstition doesn't make people totalitarian and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @anon:

    Not believing in objective morality or ultimate accountability does predispose to totalitarianism.

    It ain't rocket science, pal.

    ReplyDelete
  82. @anon:

    [Your response is pretty emotional, doc, but you offer no counter arguments.

    Take Russia before 1917. It was ruled by the Tsars who had absolute power. Christianity was its official religion. Yet it was totalitarian, with censorship, surveillance, and media control.

    Take Spain, Germany, Italy, or pretty much any of the European nations before the 20th century and see how much of a democracy it was.]

    The difference between authoritarian and totalitarian government has long been recognized. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist in authoritarianism are not under governmental control. In totalitarianism, the control extends to all aspects of life and society.

    Many governments have been authoritarian-- monarchies, some dictatorships (eg Latin American military dictators), etc. Many authoritarian governments have arisen in a Christian milieu, and of course most liberal democracies have arisen in a Christian context.

    Only a limited number of governments have been totalitarian. That would include all Communist governments. All Communist governments have been doctrinally atheist, and in fact Communism is the only form of government atheism has produced.

    All state atheism has been totalitarian.

    QED.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @anon:

    Let me make it simpler, for you atheists:

    Some state Christianity has been authoritarian (Czarist Russia, Franco's Spain,etc.)

    Some state Christianity has been liberal democratic (most of Western Europe, much of which has deep Christian roots and many of which still have established State Churches)

    No state Christianity has been totalitarian.

    All state atheism (Communism) has been totalitarian.

    QED, again.

    ReplyDelete
  84. [All state atheism (Communism) has been totalitarian. ]

    There is that sleight of hand again. Atheist, ergo communist. What a dishonest hack.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Two can play this game, Egnor.

    The Christian Europe persecuted Jews for centuries. Christian, ergo antisemite.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @anon:

    What is your problem?

    I did not say "atheist, ergo communist". That would be untrue. Obviously not all atheists are communists. Most atheists are not communists (as far as I can see). There are certainly many non-communist atheists. Some atheists (ie Ayn Rand) have been bitter foes of communism.


    I said that all state atheism has been totalitarian. Every government for which the ruling ideology has been atheist has been totalitarian. Every government for which the ruling ideology has been atheist has been Marxist in one flavor or another (except for the Cult of Reason in the French Revolution, of course).

    The invariable association between atheism-in-power and Marxism and totalitarianism is troubling to intelligent people.

    Not so much for atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @anon:

    [The Christian Europe persecuted Jews for centuries. Christian, ergo antisemite.]

    Christianity has long had a problem with anti-Semitism. We admit it, and many of us deeply regret it and try to make amends for it.

    Atheism has long had a problem with totalitarianism. You don't admit it, you don't regret it and you don't try to make amends for it.

    ReplyDelete
  88. The problem is yours. Communism does not equal state atheism. Lack of belief in gods by people in a government (state atheism) does not mean they are communists.

    ReplyDelete
  89. [Christianity has long had a problem with anti-Semitism. We admit it, and many of us deeply regret it and try to make amends for it.

    Atheism has long had a problem with totalitarianism. You don't admit it, you don't regret it and you don't try to make amends for it.]

    The analogy is false. Antisemitism came from the top of the religious hierarchy. Martin Luther and Pius IX were first and foremost religious leaders and they were adamantly anti-Jewish.

    Atheism has no hierarchical structure. There is no atheist ideology. Trying to blame atheists for totalitarianism is completely unjustified.

    ReplyDelete
  90. @anon:

    [There is no atheist ideology]

    That's really funny.

    The horrendous results of atheism-in-power are so undeniable that the only option you have is to deny that atheism has consequences.

    What cowardice.

    ReplyDelete
  91. [That's really funny.]

    No, you're just a little dense.

    Communism is an ideology. Atheism is not. Ponder that.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Michael,

    After you've got the definition of 'imaginary' so wrong, I'd be interested in what your definitions of 'totalitarianism', ' authoritarianism' and 'ideology' are.

    ReplyDelete
  93. An understanding of the terms "existence" and "flash out of".

    The problem is, people who study these sorts of things for a living disagree with you. Paired virtual particles come into and out of existence all the time.

    And your brilliant rebuttal is "nuh-uh, the don't". Color the world unimpressed with your evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  94. CrusadeReEx Said: Since only NOTHING can come from NOTHING, and SOMETHING must come from SOMETHING

    The problem with your assertions is that you have no evidence to support them. And most physicists seem to disagree with your unsupported assertions.

    I trust we'll see your physics paper supporting your raw assertions at some point in a peer reviewed journal. I'm sure that it will revolutionize physics.

    Or, since you pulled your "fact" out of your ass, I'm guessing we won't.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Where did the universe come from?

    If the universe has a flat curvature, then it has a total net rest energy of zero. With a total net rest energy of zero, the universe can be generated from nothing as a result of quantum fluctuations.

    Observation confirms that the universe has a flat curvature. Observation also confirms that the universe has a net rest energy of zero. And observation confirms the reality of quantum fluctuations.

    While you have been contributing nothing to the net knowledge of humanity by engaging in a circle jerk over the musings of a 12th century philosopher and steadfastly refusing to attempt to confirm whether his ideas actually match with the real world, people who care about actually finding out how the universe works have been busy looking at the evidence. And the evidence contradicts your very pretty story. Which makes it a very pretty, but ultimately useless story.

    Sorry if that upsets your apple cart.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anonymous said ...

    Gary H said: "The energy of nothing is nothing. Nothing doesn't exist."

    "So, what evidence do you base this statement on?"

    How about a simple dictionary?

    nothing
    noun

    - nought, zero, nil, naught, not a thing, zilch (slang)...
    void, emptiness, nothingness, nullity, nonexistence ...


    If this was a grade school science (or English) class subject, even your teacher would be wondering what you have instead of a brain.

    " You've decided that five prominent physicists don't know their own subject."

    Wrong, science itself has decided.
    Mere fact has decided. Apparently the concept of nothing being "which does not exist" escapes your mighty intellect.

    "On exactly what basis do you make this claim?"

    Umm... Ok, on exactly what basis do you claim nothing is something?

    "Oh right. You've got nothing to back up your mouth."

    Its sad to see a supposedly normal human denying reality in such glaring terms.

    Explain to us anon, please, what is the energy of nothing?

    Right back at ya boy - "You just pulled it out of your ass. How very convincing."

    I await your answer - what is the energy of nothing?

    HINT: 'something' and 'nothing' are mutually exclusive terms.

    Atheism is a thus saliently shown to be a mental illness.

    Warning: Atheism memes may be contagious to those with weak and selfish minds; and especially those that believe that nothing is actually something.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I await your answer - what is the energy of nothing?

    You really haven't kept up with quantum physics have you? The energy density of nothing is such that nothing makes up most of the energy and mass of the universe. Eliminate all visible matter - all particles, radiation and everything else - and then eliminate all dark matter and energy, and the universe will still have mass and energy. Because nothing has mass and energy.

    But you comfortably go back to foaming at the mouth and insisting you are right and all the modern cosmologists are wrong. Once you're tired of that and want to know the true picture look up asymptotic freedom sometime and once you work through the implications of that you'll realize that most of the universe is made up of nothing, and that nothing is full of potential energy.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anon says,

    "If the universe has a flat curvature"

    A flat curvature? Think about that for at least two seconds anon, PLEASE.

    Copy/pasting quick and dirty answers - while not understanding anything of it - is typical for you anon.

    And yes I have kept up on quantum physics. Believe it or not there is more than one interpretation of quantum phenomena - surprise!
    The so-called Copenhagen interpretation is the one atheists choose for rather obvious reasons - but um it's just wrong, sorry.

    But now ladies & gents, according to anonymouse "nothing" (doesn't exist remember) "has mass and energy"!!

    Please explain this anon.

    We see here how incredibly well er ... 'flexible' atheists are - anything but God goes.

    Grabbin' at straws there much huh?

    Anon - and virtually all other atheist dupes posting on forums or blogs - start out denying that atheists believe nothing created everything.

    Initially, they deny it vehemently because they know that "nothing creating everything" is absurd.

    Then, when they start squirming around Googling for some way out they find the likes of sloppy thinkers like L. Krauss et al. and the "total energy = zero" stuff, followed by humongous claims - with zero evidence - that nothing created everything.

    Then they come back just as vehemently claiming nothing did indeed create everything!

    Amazing!!!

    Well at least now we might get to the crux of this "nothing created everything" nonsense.

    Even atheist driven wikipedia explains things better than anon:

    "The shape of the universe is a matter of debate ..."

    My bold - take the hint please. Debatable mean anything to ya anon?

    "The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model,[2] while other FLRW models that fit the data include the Poincaré dodecahedral space[3][4] and the Picard horn."

    You jumped on the first model that seemed to fit your world-view.

    In spite of WMAP, the other models may still end up being more correct.

    You may also want to read this:
    http://blog.vixra.org/2010/08/17/energy-is-conserved-in-cosmology/

    Then anon says"Because nothing has mass and energy."

    1. Nothing doesn't exist.
    2. If what you are talking about has properties, then it is not nothing. Duh.

    Someday, like any kindergarten child, you may actually understand the word nothing.

    As one PhD in astronomy put it:
    "if something can some out of nothing, then anything and everything can and should come out of nothing at all times and places. This, then, is the empirical evidence we would need in order to believe that the universe could come out of nothing." - Luke Barnes

    I would also point readers to Barnes full post on nothing creating everything.

    HERE

    ReplyDelete
  99. Gary H.: And yes I have kept up on quantum physics. Believe it or not there is more than one interpretation of quantum phenomena - surprise!
    The so-called Copenhagen interpretation is the one atheists choose for rather obvious reasons - but um it's just wrong, sorry.


    You have no idea what you are talking about. What some call the Copenhagen interpretation is the standard quantum mechanics we teach in college and graduate school. Everything else is philosophical icing on the cake.

    ReplyDelete
  100. A flat curvature? Think about that for at least two seconds anon, PLEASE.

    I did. Apparently you didn't. Otherwise you'd know that "flat" is a form of curve in geometry. You're just throwing stuff out with no real understanding of what you are talking about.

    1. Nothing doesn't exist.
    2. If what you are talking about has properties, then it is not nothing.


    1. You have no idea what you are talking about. If you paid attention to physicists, you'd realize that they actually mean nothing when they say nothing. Your resorts to attempting to tout a dictionary definition as proof that nothing doesn't exist misses the fact that when physicists say nothing, they mean exactly what the dictionary says. And they are certain it does exist. Based upon empirical observation.

    2. And even that nothing, which meets the definition you tout, has energy. Quantum mechanics tells us this is true. And experiment backs this up. The fact that you seem to think it is somehow impossible is irrelevant. Reality is not obliged to conform to your preconceived notions or assumptions. It is very plausible that the universe was created out of nothing as a result of the operation of the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics.

    Sorry if that upsets your apple cart. Actually I'm not. Reality doesn't care about what you want one way or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  101. In spite of WMAP, the other models may still end up being more correct.

    And yet WMAP is the only model that has substantial actual observational support. Your simply grasping at straws "something else could be true!" Sure it could. But right now there is no evidence that would contradict WMAP.

    You may also want to read this:
    http://blog.vixra.org/2010/08/17/energy-is-conserved-in-cosmology/


    And? If the total net rest energy of the universe is zero, then there's nothing that having energy conserved would contradict. Your link is simply a red herring.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Actually, what I intended to write was:

    And yet a flat universe is the only model that has substantial actual observational support. Your simply grasping at straws "something else could be true!" Sure it could. But right now there is no evidence that would contradict a flat universe or strong evidence in favor of any other model. The Poincaré dodecahedral space has very limited support in observation, and the the Picard horn is only partially in accord with observation.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Oleg,

    "You have no idea what you are talking about. What some call the Copenhagen interpretation is the standard quantum mechanics we teach in college and graduate school. Everything else is philosophical icing on the cake."

    Sorry Oleg but you are the one that has no idea what you're talking about.

    Darwinian evolution is also the standard model taught in college but its totally wrong.

    The Copenhagen interpretation is wrong. The other views are anything but mere philosophical niceties as some tend to contradict Cop in vital ways.

    You atheists are seriously hopeless. You will believe anything at all - as long as no God inference is involved - anything. Revealing indeed as to your real problem - which is moral.

    You'll believe nothing is something, something is nothing, nothing has properties, right is wrong, black is white, 2+2 = 0, you name it - as long as it keeps you from any God inference.

    This attitude is both despicable and insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anonymous said...

    " I did. Apparently you didn't."

    Nice try, you're still wrong and this pseudo scientific flatulence isn't helping you.

    "You're just throwing stuff out with no real understanding of what you are talking about."

    Right back at ya.
    You contradict yourself at every turn, but, like all atheists, you're blind to it.

    "...they actually mean nothing when they say nothing."

    Duh. No kidding. This is your problem, not mine. Sheesh

    " ...they mean exactly what the dictionary says. And they are certain it does exist. Based upon empirical observation."

    Right. They know and have empirical evidence that nothing is something.

    ROTFLMAO.

    And you still can't see the rather stunning contradiction in that!?

    "2. And even that nothing, which meets the definition you tout, has energy. Quantum mechanics tells us this is true."

    I only wish you could understand English and the most simple logic.
    Not surprising though. Atheism short circuits the brains logic gates.

    HINT: empty space isn't nothing.
    Space is something.

    "And experiment backs this up."

    Fer sure! lol

    Oh, and I'd love to see these experiments that demonstrate how nothing is actually something and how "nothing" has laws and properties. Please give us references.

    HINT: if nothing is actually something, science itself is eternally dead.
    Thus atheism is anti-science to the max.

    "Reality is not obliged to conform to your preconceived notions ..."

    Well one thing is certain; Reality DOES NOT conform to your own preconceived and inane ideas, nor those of Krauss et al..

    You've utterly misunderstood (twisted) the whole discussion here.

    It is very plausible that the universe was created out of nothing as a result of the operation of the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics.

    Sorry you poor blind dimwit but: Nothing has no laws, quantum or otherwise. Laws are something!

    Please try to understand science 101:
    i.e. As soon as you mention laws and quantum mechanics you're no longer speaking about nothing!!

    Or are you such an imbecile as to not get even that?

    Nothing means nothing as per "absence of everything" including laws, energy, properties ... - its zip, zilch, rien, nada, belaimah, .

    On considering similar propositions Aristotle concluded; "Although these opinions seem to follow logically in a dialectical discussion, yet to believe them seems next door to madness when one considers the facts."

    Madness, insanity are part of atheism.

    " Sorry if that upsets your apple cart. Actually I'm not. "

    Nothing you say upsets anything but my ever decreasing view that there is any hope for you, for you are in fact, imo, insane.

    Just unreal how atheism turns normally intelligent people into complete brain dead morons.

    Alice: "I see nothing."
    Cheshire Cat: "My. You have good eyes."


    A truly wise man wrote, "Bragging of being so wise they became utter morons."

    Seeing it is vain to attempt intelligent discussion with the insane I leave Mr. Anon to others willing to attempt reason with such a one.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Nice try, you're still wrong and this pseudo scientific flatulence isn't helping you.

    It is at this point that one realizes that you truly have no idea what you are talking about, even on the most basic level. Flat is the shape of a curve. You seem to think that "curve" means "not flat", but in geometry, flat is just a specific type of curve.

    The rest of your post is simply drivel. You don't even understand enough to understand why you are wrong at every turn. You're good at hurling insults and making categorical statements with nothing to back them up. But on science, you're pretty much completely ignorant.

    Sad really.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Oh, and I'd love to see these experiments that demonstrate how nothing is actually something and how "nothing" has laws and properties. Please give us references.

    You didn't actually look up asymptotic freedom did you? Or you did and you simply don't understand it.

    Predictable.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Darwinian evolution is also the standard model taught in college but its totally wrong.

    You are excused from the grown-ups table. The kids are sitting over there. When you are enough of a big boy to understand actual science, you can come back.

    The Copenhagen interpretation is wrong. The other views are anything but mere philosophical niceties as some tend to contradict Cop in vital ways.

    You are so cute when you use big words you don't understand.

    ReplyDelete
  108. @anon:

    [You are excused from the grown-ups table. The kids are sitting over there. When you are enough of a big boy to understand actual science, you can come back]

    That's been your m.o. for a very long time. "we're the experts, shut up".

    No longer. There are a lot of very smart people who know guys like you are full of crap. You're being called on it. And you're very angry.

    Get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  109. When attempting to solve any scientific question, given a choice between A) hundreds of thousands of man-hours of research, millions of petabytes of testable, verifiable, and repeatable data, which provides the best, and most logical explanation for the question at hand, or B) "goddidit", choosing B) is the epitome of intellectual cowardice and sheer idiocy.


    Choosing B) is all the Discovery Institute ever does - evidently there's good money in the whole "lying for jesus" racket.

    Perhaps all that money would be better spent saving children from disease and starvation, or preventing the spread of AIDS by distribution of condoms in Africa, or prosecuting the sheltered clergy members guilty of decades of institutionally-sponsored sexual abuse of children, or providing effective sexual health education and services for women throughout the world.

    Mr. Egnor, the only people full of crap are the ones who use their twisted Bronze Age beliefs of magical sky wizards to force those archaic superstitions down the throats of people who reject them, and all they stand for.

    The "Discovery" Institute is nothing but a bunch of modern day snake oil salesmen. You are absolutely free to hold your beliefs - as long as you keep them to yourself, as instructed in Matthew 6:1-8. (Read it sometime, or better yet, have someone else read it to you, since you don't seem capable of understanding that part.) As long as you keep it to yourselves, and out of my schools, government, and life, we're just fine.

    Religion is decreasing in influence throughout the world, Mr. Egnor, and is only increasing in its decline.

    Get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Oh, I almost forgot - Mr. Egnor asked, "Where did everything come from?"

    Ask a cosmologist.

    (Preferably one *not* on the Discovery Institute, Vatican, or Templeton Foundation payrolls, naturally - you'd want a true expert in the field, and not a woo-addled charlatan, trying to twist science to fit his religious delusions.)

    ReplyDelete
  111. The Intolerant Bastard has spoken!

    The Intolerant Bastard tells us to "ask a cosmologist" where everything came from.

    Short answer from any honest cosmologist? "We don't know".

    Too bad Mr. Bastard is so intolerant of the very idea of a creator that he is willing to believe that nothing is something and created everything.

    Sadly, Mr. Bastard, being intolerant of anything that doesn't fit his feckless worldview doesn't bother to read much scientific literature.

    Dr Mary Hesse wrote:
    " But perhaps it is unfair to judge the significance of science in general from cosmology, which is a special case in being as far removed from and sparsely supported by the here-and-now evidence as any theories can be"

    I.e. Cosmologists, like Darwinists, are amazing good story tellers and speculators but really ought to land on planet earth and taste reality once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Fortunately for the world, there are many theist cosmologists and astrophysicists, physicists etc, that laugh at the nothing created everything nonsense.

    Indeed modern science was founded almost entirely by theist scientists, including the setting forth of the so-called "scientific method" (now twisted and crippled by naturalism).

    Astrophysicist and Nobel Laureate Arno A. Penzias is a good example of a creationist astrophysicist.

    He concluded that if it the universe is open, expanding forever, it would be "precisely the universe that organized religion predicts."

    About 95% of astronomers and astrophysicists (according to Peter Garnavich of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) believe that the universe is indeed "open".

    "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
    - Albert Einstein

    ReplyDelete
  113. Gary H. "He concluded that if it the universe is open, expanding forever, it would be 'precisely the universe that organized religion predicts.'"
    And so was the flat-earth geocentric model. And the geocentric model. And YEC. And OEC. And Etc. When reality doesn't fit the model, scientists change the model. Theologians move the target over and count the new model as a hit.

    "'The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ...'"
    Congratulations on quoting someone who, while religious in a sense, was not religious in your sense. If theists (and, for that matter, atheists) followed Einstein's vague Spinozianism (which, much to my shock, isn't a word), I could quite happily go back to being an apatheist.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Gary H.; you're telling me that "we don't know" automatically equates "goddidit".

    Let me fill you in on a little secret. Throughout the entire history of the human race, there have been an estimated 100+ BILLION people to have lived and died here on Earth.

    In all that time, not one of them has ever presented tangible, measurable, physical, or verifiable evidence of the existence of ANY of the THOUSANDS of purported supreme deities that mankind has worshipped throughout the years. None. Nada. Zilch. Not one scintilla of evidence. (Since it is religious believers that assert there is a god, it logically falls on said believers to provide measurable and verifiable empirical evidence to back up their claims.)

    ...and you're telling me that Mr. Egnor - who has a vested financial interest in perpetuating belief in a god - not just any god, but his particular flavor of god - has some sort of proof that it exists, where no human has ever come close to doing so previously?


    Without further ado, let's see the data. It's your assertion, so show us your data.


    Homo sapiens has been waiting for over 250,000 years for this "proof" - it had better be good.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Another thing - christians are always trying to claim "censorship" when people challenge their Constitutional violations like the Cranston West School Prayer - this view couldn't possibly be farther from the truth. Students have the right to non-disruptive, personal prayer - they have always had this right. What they do NOT have, is the right to have state-sponsored prayer foisted upon them in a place they are forced by law to attend. That's not censorship - that's correcting an egregious Constitutional violation. All the misdirection on Jessica's motives, or the length of time previous complaints have been ignored, or the incredulous claim that it's not a prayer (when the very student who was commissioned by the school to write it admits it's a prayer - let alone the blatantly obvious wording "SCHOOL PRAYER" at the very top of the banner itself) are superfluous to the facts at hand - this is a state-sponsored prayer in a PUBLIC SCHOOL, and it violates the law. Period.

    Why can't you cretins grasp that simple fact?

    ReplyDelete
  116. @intolerant:

    [Mr. Egnor - who has a vested financial interest in perpetuating belief in a god]

    Huh?

    [Homo sapiens has been waiting for over 250,000 years for this "proof"(of God)

    Existence itself is proof of God-- the existence of the universe, of you and me, of objective truth, of objective moral law, of change in nature, of teleology in nature.

    You mistake your ignorance of self-evident and classical demonstrations for God's existence for an argument.

    [- it had better be good.]

    It's very good. Start with Aquinas' First Way.

    [What they do NOT have, is the right to have state-sponsored prayer foisted upon them in a place they are forced by law to attend]

    Is it Constitutional to post the Declaration of Independence on a school wall? What about all of that "endowed by our Creator" stuff?

    That affirms that all our rights come from God. That's a lot more powerful than an anodyne prayer.

    Is it unconstitutional?

    ReplyDelete
  117. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Dr. Egnor, don't forget that Mr. Bastard hates the US Constitution and freedom because of its intrinsic support of theism.

    There's no reasoning with such a one.

    ReplyDelete
  119. @Garh:

    I agree.

    I don't think that political liberty can be founded without God. If God is denied, liberty will eventually die.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Sure, you can display a copy of the Declaration of Independence - it's an incredible important historical example, just like the Magna Carta, the Treaty of Tripoli, or Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

    Of course, the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing today, as no modern US laws are codified from it (unlike our deity-free Constitution)...

    Another thing that christian apologists do a lot these days is when they take out-of-text quotes from select Founding Fathers as proof of their being the equivalent of modern day christians (while the vast majority of them were actually deists, and not at all accepting of miracles, divinity, and all that other fantasy garbage), yet when presented with directly sourced passages from Mein Kampf, or hundreds of his political speeches, they desperately refuse to acknowledge Hitler's repeatedly avowed christian faith... until the day they manage to burn all extant copies of the book, and melt down all the "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) military paraphernalia that was issued to millions of German soldiers, this behavior pattern will continue for the foreseeable future, I'm afraid.

    (Sorry I wasn't explicit enough for you earlier, Mr. Egnor, when I pointed out your connection to the "Discovery" Institute - being a Fellow there makes you an integral part of the organization, and it's certainly in their interest to convert as many gullible people to christianity as possible, since more sheep equals more voluntary contributions... so DI benefits directly - I'm not sure how they compensate you for the use of your unrelated expertise, but they must feel like having a staff neurosurgeon acting as a religious apologist mouthpiece somehow provides them with a useful service.)


    One more observation, if I may; your last post said this;

    "I don't think that political liberty can be founded without God. If God is denied, liberty will eventually die."

    Would you then be a proponent of christian dominionism? You know, where only christians are thought to be fit to hold public office? Because your opinion is an exact duplicate of theirs... and that's another classic case of religion-based totalitarianism.

    ReplyDelete
  121. @intolerant:

    [Of course, the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing today, as no modern US laws are codified from it (unlike our deity-free Constitution)...]

    "Separation of church and state" then has no legal standing either. No US laws are "codified from it".

    [Sorry I wasn't explicit enough for you earlier, Mr. Egnor, when I pointed out your connection to the "Discovery" Institute - being a Fellow there ... I'm not sure how they compensate you for the use of your unrelated expertise, but they must feel like having a staff neurosurgeon acting...]

    I have only blogged for the DI. For free. I have never gotten a cent from them, nor have I ever been a fellow. I visited them once to speak at a course they were sponsoring (they paid my travel expenses only).

    I do this because I believe it is a good thing to do. I am paid nothing for it.

    Wy must you impute financial motives to people who disagree with you?

    ReplyDelete
  122. @intolerant:

    [Would you then be a proponent of christian dominionism?]

    I don't know what you mean by "dominionism".

    I don't want an establishment of religion, mine or anybody else's.

    I support the Constitution, 100%.

    I would like to see as many Christian principles as possible reflected in our laws, etc, consistent of course with the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  123. >> I don't want an establishment of religion, mine or anybody else's. <<

    Bull. If prayers in public schools are funded on the taxpayer dime, which you fascistically demand, then that's an establishment of religion, esp. as Madison & Jefferson understood it.

    >> I support the Constitution, 100%. <<

    Like hell you do. You want the Bill of Rights abolished so taxpayer dollars can support your religion, which cannot survived in the free market without government subsidies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prayers in public schools were funded on the taxpayer dime for 200 years, before Engle v Vitale. Are you seriously claiming that we had an Established Church for 200 years?

      An Establishment of religion has three characteristics:

      1) A legal establishment-- a law or Constitutional provision that establishes a specific church as the National Church

      2) Mandatory financial support by all citizens for a Church.

      3) Mandatory participation in the religious activities of the Established Church.

      Voluntary school prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause, just as voluntary discussion of political issues in school does not violate the right to freedom of speech.

      Delete
  124. Hey, I know a country that was based on Christian moral principles, and where Christianity was supported by taxpayer funds... Nazi Germany.

    Hitler promised his people a nation based on Christian moral principles, and he delivered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you think that Nazism was a Christian ideology, you are too far removed from reality to bother with.

      Delete
  125. @Diogenes

    You are one hell of an sorry ignoramus.
    Far from reality indeed.
    You might want to get an education on WWII and the Nazi agenda huh?
    Go read the Nuremberg trial transcripts. Better yet, listen to Hitlers "table talks".
    He hated Christianity, and his agenda was to destroy Christianity; after destroying the Jews.
    You are an incompetent blow hard ignoramus.

    ReplyDelete