I guess high level physics will read like gobbledygook to the uninitiated.

Just as much as low level philosophy is gobbledygook to the initiated.

There is no "high level physics" that proves that "because gravity exists, the universe can and will create itself." That's a bunch of hogwash, and
you know it.

Exactly, another really stupid thing that Hawkings said:

Stephen Hawking, the renowned physicist, has declared that “Philosophy is dead”.

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, the author of 'A Brief History of Time' said that fundamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research. “Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.”

The problem is that Hawking's statement about philosophy is itself a philosophical statement. It is not a statement of science: it is a metaphysical statement about science. Therefore, his statement that philosophy is dead contradicts itself. It is a classic example of logical incoherence.

This may be the best post I've ever read in RGT.

How do you explain your existence?

High-level physicists' understanding of quantum physics is so infantile at this point in human history. We only "discovered" Higgs three years ago and it was not like anything that anyone thought it would be. Over the next 10-30 years, we should start to have some very limited understanding of dark matter and gravity that should allow us to begin to understand some of the VERY BASIC Universal rules. Hawkins' statements have a similar ring to Einstein's statements about gravitational lensing. Until it was actually proven, the concept of light bending via gravity without mass would be preposterous. Now, it is a "proof" of general relativity.

I find this to be very inaccurate and would need some examples. The reason many scientist used to be religious is bc culture as a whole used to be very religious. Its the same reason carpenters, and engineers used to be more religious. Everybody used to be more religious. People are trendy, and follow the crowd. Especially when it related to their survival and replication. Being atheist back in the day was frowned upon by just about everybody. Most of the professional scientists I know ( and I know a lot) spend all their time focused on studying topics that are in their field bc this directly affects their survival and replication. If you asked them about creation/evolution they would say they don't know/don't care bc it isn't a hot topic anymore like it was in the 50/60s. But if you ask a religious leader it absolutely effects their survival and replication so they tend to have more interest in the topic. Also using the term scientist is pretty loose and vague. Like i said most scientists have no more info on these topic then the trolls in this thread.


Where did gravity come from? If you don't believe that things were created I have to assume a bit of ignorance on one's part. Im not claiming to know things were created bc I wasn't there, but I would be ignorant not to assume it. The idea that things evolved into this beautiful earth from nothing has no foundation, theory, physics, science to back it up. No theories are even remotely logical. I would ask mr sklansky the question...how did his body get finger nails? i see God and religion used a lot interchangeably in these threads which seems to lead me to a source of the ignorance and why people in modern day tend to prefer a atheist or agnostic stance on things. Which is fine. I have a more negative view on religion than then strongest atheist in this thread. If Kim Jong-Un killed people in the name of poker...it would give our game a bad name and all the outsiders would say poker was associated/cause of mass murder/genocide. But it wouldn't change what poker was and it wouldn't be poker's fault.

When you subtract "most" from "all" you get "some".

If a performer performs a hundred never before seen tricks and he claims its real magic the audience might believe him.

Now suppose a group of professional magicians start trying to figure out how to do these tricks. Suppose they succeed in 85 cases. This takes many years to accomplish one by one. The most amazing tricks though are some of the 15 they have yet to figure out.

Some in the audience when confronted with this evidence, and most of the magicians themselves will be persuaded that the original performance was simply the work of a great, but lying, magician.

Others will note that just because a trick can be done with routine magic it doesn't mean that the original performer did it that way. Even some of the magicians who worked out the 85 techniques might think that the original performance was for real. Because some of those remaining 15 cases seem amazing even to them, and they can't imagine ever duplicating them through trickery.

1. The big bang is a theory with some evidence to make it the best explanation we have. We might never find out what triggered it, but the default position that"God must of did it" is only a satisfactory answer to those that have given up on the truth.

2. Not from nothing. While we dont know how the universe started, we do know it exists and the building blocks of life are abundant and spread through out the universe.

3.Yes life is complex and the theory of evolution has gaping holes in it but we can and have witnessed many things evolving.

Sorry, but your answers did nothing to answer the questions I posed.

1. Yes, there is much evidence that the Big Bang happened, but nothing happens without a cause - so what was the cause that caused the Big Bang?

2. You gave no reason/evidence to show where life came from

3. You gave no explanation as to where the unbelievably complex information and design came from that exists in DNA (and please don't say it evolved from nothing).

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

You do know that there is big gaps in our knowledge and that's enough proof for you of God design. If you want to hand wave away all the that science has shown us then that is your choice.

As a species we are very young and our rate of knowledge is increasing very rapidly. If the human race survives another ten thousand years, we might very well have the answers to the questions you are asking.

The two posts above fit very nicely into my magician analogy.

I don't doubt that there are big gaps in our knowledge...but the weird thing is people that deny the evidence right in front of them. Go to the beach, catch a crab and eat it, ride a horse, climb mount Everest, watch a sunrise (in color which your eyes were made to see), drink water, stick your willy in the honey hole, whatever it is things seem to have too natural a fit. How would replication have started? Just because a big bang created something how would that something be able to reproduce with another something. The gap for the big bang theory seems way more far fetched. Nothing has ever come from nothing and people want to believe that this amazing indescribable place came without a hint of grandeur or design.

You think this world exists just for us. Crabs have been around for millions of years, they were just waiting for us so we can eat them and give their existence meaning?

As for the big bang I never thought that something came from nothing. I always thought that the universe always existed. What if black holes created the big bang? That is my pondering the truth is no one knows and that is not enough evidence for me to believe in some grand design .

show your work

Isn't the ex nihilo a real problem? I thought this was the consensus.

what is nothing anyway? does it exist?

He shouldn't. Really imo no one should with the limited info about existence we have, but they do.

The only problem I have with the Magician analogy from mr Sklansky is that in the analogy nothing of material is being produced by the magician. So whether its real magic of slight of hand becomes the main point of focus. When something of matter is produced it changes things. If the magician took you into an empty backyard and 20 minutes later there was a beautiful in-ground pool then the other magicians and skeptics would have the pool to observe and examine to persuade their judgement as to whether the act was real or fake.

The fingernail question is exactly the type of thing I am talking about. I am surprised you used it and would expect it wouldn't be used by most educated theists today. Because if it hasn't already been explained it is likely to be soon. And since you used it as an argument you would be forced to backtrack in the face of the explanation.

As for theories about the earth, how can you say that they are not remotely logical given the logic skills of those putting them forth? Do you think you could beat them on a logic test? Do you think that they would propose a theory that was obviously illogical? That is not to say that they are correct and you are not. But to call them not remotely logical is as silly as saying that they are wrong because they screwed up the trigonometry when they formulated the theory.

My analogy didn't preclude the possibility that the performer appeared to create something. If other magicians could somehow make a pool appear most would think it much more likely the first guy used the same technique rather than real magic.

Atheism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby. You obviously have your belief and that's fine. But the fact that I don't join you in that belief does not constitute a "belief system" on my part.

And btw, your OP is the laziest kind there is.

Wrong. As an atheist, I'm simply stating that I don't believe in your fairy tale. I express no certainty in anything for which there is no evidence.

I actually dislike the label "atheist." There is no label you can apply to me for not believing in alchemy (unless you want to call me reasonable), and not believing in your fairy tale, made up invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being is about the same to me. So just call me sane and smart, thank you.

But carry on with your delusion off it gives you comfort.

I disagree. Consider the following version of your "proof":



P1 There is a unicorn

As we've discussed before the weak atheist may just refuse to assent to the proposition, the strong atheist denies it hence assents to

P2 There is no unicorn.

Asserting P2 is different from withholding on P1 and as a claim requires evidence, if we accept that there is insufficient evidence to support P2 how does the atheist get there?


The evidence for the existence of unicorns is the same as evidence for the existence of a god (pick anyone of them you like: Jehovah, Baal, Thor, Zeus, etc, etc, ad nauseam).