Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[Audie]

Thanks for expressing your beliefs.

Translated as, "you win".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

he didn't say WHO designed the universe
or to WHOM he might be grateful

This has got to be one of the most blatant instances of quote mining I've ever seen.
Did you read the whole quote?

he's is now one of the grateful dead
and likely.....surprised

Perhaps you should show a minimum of respect.

 

[Audie]

Not a belief, not an opinion.

Simple fact.

IC is infested with logical fallacies, as has been demonstrated hundreds of times by now.

In fact, it's amazing that this nonsense still keeps coming up in discussions, considering how often it's been refuted, debunked, falsified to hell and back.

Coz creationists are infestulated with logical fallacies?

 

[Subduction Zone]

he didn't say WHO designed the universe
or to WHOM he might be grateful

he's is now one of the grateful dead

and likely.....surprised

Not necessarily. Why do you assume that there was a creator? Can you even begin to show that one is necessary?

 

[Thief]

a cheap stab at islam.

?????

that woman didn't think so
and neither did the executioner

but hey.....you got no worries

so what if you end up in a box in the ground
so what if eternal darkness is physically real

so what if your spirit is alive and well .....now

 

[Thief]

Not necessarily. Why do you assume that there was a creator? Can you even begin to show that one is necessary?

science would have you believe.....all things remain still
unless something causes a movement

if the primordial singularity was a simple bang
it would also a hollow sphere of energy ever expanding

but that's not what we see when we look up

so....the rotation had to be in place BEFORE the bang

that would be the pinch and snap of God's fingers

so to speak

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I understood that it was a refutation but I did not really found, science also said that kerosene melts steel...

But. Burning kerosene does take the temper out of steel-- which is rather a form of melting it. Complex alloys are not like water-- you do not suddenly go from solid to liquid--- there is a wide range of temperatures in which the steel becomes plastic-- think, soft modeling clay or even stiff mud.

If the steel is absolutely required to be solid, relatively rigid and strong-- or else what it is holding up? Won't stay up....

... hey! Whatyaknow? It didn't stay up...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are the person handing me phony arguments that fail themselves.

Extreme irony is duly noted and recorded for Prosperity.

The irony of someone who claims "God Is Exactly This, and Says Exactly This" without first showing that gods are even possible!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I figured it out what it was , I asked for link of trial that that refutes ic concept, that was not it.

I gave you 14. Which you ignored, obviously...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

?????

that woman didn't think so
and neither did the executioner

but hey.....you got no worries

so what if you end up in a box in the ground
so what if eternal darkness is physically real

so what if your spirit is alive and well .....now

You can keep trying to dodge the actual point that was made.
It won't make it go away.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And massive steel center core columns should have been left standing intact unless kerosene fire melted them...

You really have no clue about the difference between tempered steel and untempered steel, do you?

And you claim to be ... an architect? Can we please have a list of buildings you had anything to do with, so those may be marked as unsafe at any speed?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is the post I responded to “Irreducible complexity has been totally debunked in court. I am surprised people are still bringing it up”

Not only debunked in court, but it had never been presented as valid hypothesis, let alone anything beyond that.

I.C. is pure Religious Belief, and requires 100% faith. Since it absolutely has zero evidence in support of it's claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if the primordial singularity was a simple bang
it would also a hollow sphere of energy ever expanding

Why would that be the case?

that would be the pinch and snap of God's fingers

You forgot to explain the part where any of what you said 1. was actually accurate and 2. leads to or suggests any sort of god.

Repeating your claim will not support your claim

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So you think the Multiverse theory or parallel universe theories are just Woo Woo?

Does Stephen Hawking’s final theory tame the multiverse? | EarthSky.org
Hawking and Hertog’s latest study deals specifically with a subset of Big Bang theory, called eternal inflation. Most modern Big Bang theories incorporate the idea of an inflation, which calls for an exponential expansion of space in the universe’s first fraction of a second. Eternalinflation suggests that some pockets of space keep expanding exponentially forever, while some (like the one we inhabit) don’t.

If this theory is an accurate description of the cosmos, then we live in a multiverse consisting of many isolated bubble universes.

If it’s true, then our entire known cosmos of galaxies and stars exists inside a sort of bubble, but many other bubbles – forever unknowable – exist outside ours. Some might have laws of physics similar to (or even the same as) ours. Some would operate very differently. The University of Cambridge issued a statement about Hawking’s final study this week. It explained:

The observable part of our universe would then be just a hospitable pocket universe, a region in which inflation has ended and stars and galaxies formed.​

What a nice piece of Straw Man you have there.

The Mulitverse Hypothesis? Has zero evidence in support of it-- it is, at present, just a hypothesis without a single experiment in support.

Even Dr Hawking admitted that, when pressed.

So my statement stands as written. Show experimental evidence for a multi-verse, and I will listen.

Until then? It's merely Interesting.

 

[Thief]

You can keep trying to dodge the actual point that was made.
It won't make it go away.

yep......angels with swords

been displayed that way for centuries

not going away

 

[Thief]

Why would that be the case?

your question should have been answered by you

makes me wonder...…
do you really need me to answer it?
or would the answer be difficult for you to admit

 

[Road Warrior]

Translated as, "you win".

You are free to translate it into anything you desire, Audie, but that doesn't make it true just like it's not true that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence as most of the atheists posting on this thread indicate.

 

[Road Warrior]

What a nice piece of Straw Man you have there.

The Mulitverse Hypothesis? Has zero evidence in support of it-- it is, at present, just a hypothesis without a single experiment in support.

Even Dr Hawking admitted that, when pressed.

So my statement stands as written. Show experimental evidence for a multi-verse, and I will listen.

Until then? It's merely Interesting.

Not a straw man when you said it yourself:

BINGO! And since we have zero examples of anything-- any phenomena at all-- being "outside"? (if such an idea is even rational or makes sense)

We can dismiss all such phenomena as unlikely in the extreme.

It's akin to asking "what is North of the North Pole?"

The idea is both rational and sensible. It's also logical to accept the idea that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's just an unproved idea. You're asserting that it's impossible and cannot be without single shred of evidence. So who here is the irrational and insensible one?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are free to translate it into anything you desire, Audie, but that doesn't make it true just like it's not true that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence as most of the atheists posting on this thread indicate.

There is a difference between pragmatic proof, and ultimate proof.

In the case of god-claims? Pragmatically speaking? The 100% lack of proof for any god, is pragmatic proof that no such things exist.

Science operates in this way, actually-- typically, statistics are utilized to pragmatically indicate a given hypothesis is quite good enough, to model whatever it is scientists are attempting to model.

That's the beauty of it: In actual science? It hardly matters if the model is Actual Reality or not-- if the model works well enough, for useful predictions? The model stands.

Until some experiment comes along that requires altering the model or causing it to be replaced with something more accurate.

So. Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence? Yes, practically speaking.

Pascal's Wager is pure bull exhaust.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Not a straw man when you said it yourself:

The idea is both rational and sensible. It's also logical to accept the idea that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's just an unproved idea. You're asserting that it's impossible and cannot be without single shred of evidence. So who here is the irrational and insensible one?

Yet another Straw Man. Wow.... you just keep repeating the same mistake over and over.

Projecting something I did not say, to fit your pre-conceived notions.

Would you like some bird seed for that game of pigeon chess?