Re: OT: atheism is pathetic



Louis Epstein wrote:
jesshc <jesshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:
:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> jesshc <jesshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> jesshc <jesshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> :> Alex Clark <alexbclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> :> : On Jan 12, 9:23 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> :> :> In alt.fan.harry-potter Trent Woodruff <afreti...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> :> :> :
:> :> :> :> : ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
:> :> :> :> : than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
:> :> :> :> : gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
:> :> :> :> : - Stephen Roberts
:> :> :> :>
:> :> :> :> I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
:> :> :> :> Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence
:> :> :> :> can not call the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of
:> :> :> :> Existence into question.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> : But when atheists talk about the First Cause, do they call it "God"?
:> :> :> : These are two different things. For an atheist, assuming that "God" is
:> :> :> : the right name for the First Cause is kind of like assuming that
:> :> :> : "George W. Bush" is the name of the leader of the free world. There is
:> :> :> : one concept that is called "God", and another that is called the
:> :> :> : "Infinitely First Cause of Existence", and some say that they are one
:> :> :> : and the same. Atheists do not say this.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Atheists are in denial about this.
:> :> :
:> :> : Only in the sense that atheists, along with some scientists, don't
:> :> : assume a first cause is required.
:> :>
:> :> And are thus in error, as nothing can be assumed before the
:> :> requirement of a first cause!
:> :
:> : Sorry, punkin, you're painfully, embarrassingly wrong.
:> :
:> : http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover
:> : Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a radical idea that
:> : could wipe away these mysteries. They theorize that the cosmos was
:> : never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a
:> : violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross
:> : section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in
:> : dimensions we cannot perceive. What we think of as the Big Bang, they
:> : contend, was the result of a collision between our three-dimensional
:> : world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a
:> : proton away from ours--right next to us, and yet displaced in a way
:> : that renders it invisible. Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the
:> : latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the
:> : past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew.
:> : The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this
:> : endless expanse of time.
:> :
:> : http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Before_The_Big_Bang_999.html
:> : New discoveries about another universe whose collapse appears to have
:> : given birth to the one we live in today will be announced in the early
:> : on-line edition of the journal Nature Physics on 1 July 2007 and will
:> : be published in the August 2007 issue of the journal's print edition.
:> : "My paper introduces a new mathematical model that we can use to
:> : derive new details about the properties of a quantum state as it
:> : travels through the Big Bounce, which replaces the classical idea of a
:> : Big Bang as the beginning of our universe," said Martin Bojowald,
:> : assistant professor of physics at Penn State.
:>
:> If you think this in any way refutes the necessity of an ultimate reason for all existence...you're wrong.
:
: Great. Explain why. Support your assertions. Try not to equivocate
: between "first cause" and "ultimate reason for all existence," since
: they're two different subjects.

If you think they're different subjects,
you're not going to understand an explanation.

Not if you continue to dodge, no.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: atheism is pathetic
    ... the universe as we know it is a small cross ... they say the Big Bang is just the ... :>: latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the ... :>: derive new details about the properties of a quantum state as it ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: OT: atheism is pathetic
    ... Louis Epstein wrote: ... Atheists do not say this. ... the universe as we know it is a small cross ... Each collision creates the universe anew. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: OT: atheism is pathetic
    ... Louis Epstein wrote: ... the universe as we know it is a small cross ... :>: latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the ... :>: derive new details about the properties of a quantum state as it ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: OT: atheism is pathetic
    ... Louis Epstein wrote: ... :>: Only in the sense that atheists, along with some scientists, don't ... the universe as we know it is a small cross ... Nor do unsupported assertions, ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: OT: atheism is pathetic
    ... Louis Epstein wrote: ... the universe as we know it is a small cross ... Most atheists do not even believe in a first cause - nor that one was ever needed. ... Well - that is not true - and they then prove it is not true by claiming that their god was eternal - meaning that NOT everything needed a beginning. ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)