Return of the Heretic - Something ado about Nothing

[bgbarber]

Having returned from purgatory I am now back in Fantasy Island (oh the irony of it). I would like to ask of the rational (atheist and others) about the concept of “nothing”.
Now before my straw bones are blown away via a hurricane of postal fury allow me to clarify. How do rational scientific thinkers, irrational scientific thinkers and those that simply make it up, explain the conditions prior to and causing the “big bang” (and I mean in context of the universe for all you party people and revolutionaries alike).

[atheist_angel]

theist: I don't know what was before the big bang...

Therefore god did it!Are you serious?

[Fearless]

Would that be the same as asking a believer what conditions were there before god? and maybe the burning question of who (or what) made god?

But seriously, I can't speak for scientists, I don't know, nothing can be proven at this time (but you know this). I do understand they are getting very much closer to proving 'something'...

Something is a heck of a lot more than 'nothing' though, and 'nothing' is exactly how much can be proven by the bible.

Oh, welcome back!

[bgbarber]

Are you serious?

Absolutely.

[kencooke]

I don't know what caused or what was before the big bang. So what?

[bgbarber]

Would that be the same as asking a believer what conditions were there before god? and maybe the burning question of who (or what) made god?

But seriously, I can't speak for scientists, I don't know, nothing can be proven at this time (but you know this). I do understand they are getting very much closer to proving 'something'...

Something is a heck of a lot more than 'nothing' though, and 'nothing' is exactly how much can be proven by the bible.

Oh, welcome back!

Thanks. Although the tone was not so much - It is a serious question as some current scientific theories raise some really interesting discussion points.

[Fearless]

I felt I gave you a fairly serious answer. I also felt it was vaguely accurate.

Hopefully one of our science buffs can give you an even deeper meaning...

One thing to always keep in mind:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." ~ Carl Sagan

[bgbarber]

Nothing: the amount of knowledge I have of what took place around the Big Bang.

Also the amount of bearing this has on any critique of atheism, and the amount of credible proof it is of the existence of a deity.

Wouldn't you do better asking some scientists?

Personally I think it is an important question that is worth speculating (or hypothesize)

[Mentally Saturated]

I would like to ask of the rational (atheist and others) about the concept of “nothing”.

Yea, that's the ticket. One can only assume that you've got your brain around everything else in science that is currently "known with any certainty", and feel competent enough to dive straight into the phenomenally difficult questions that few people who walk the face of this planet are probably qualified or perhaps equipped to answer. Nice one.

I would submit wholeheartedly to your "towering intellect".. altho the current demonstration of that aforementioned quality is perhaps put into question by the methodology of this latest engagement. :(

I'll just watch for now, with the hope I'll learn something. At a bare minimum, I expect it will reflect the "don't bite off more than U can chew" ideal. Anything beyond that will be a bonus. Again, I know my limitations.

I honestly hope U find the answers U seek.

Gary

[bgbarber]

Yea, that's the ticket. One can only assume that you've got your brain around everything else in science that is currently "known with any certainty", and feel competent enough to dive straight into the phenomenally difficult questions that few people who walk the face of this planet are probably qualified or perhaps equipped to answer. Nice one.

I would submit wholeheartedly to your "towering intellect".. altho the current demonstration of that aforementioned quality is perhaps put into question by the methodology of this latest engagement. :(

I'll just watch for now, with the hope I'll learn something. At a bare minimum, I expect it will reflect the "don't bite off more than U can chew" ideal. Anything beyond that will be a bonus. Again, I know my limitations.

I honestly hope U find the answers U seek.

Gary

It was simply a discussion forum question (in Fantasy Island) Gary. Thanks for highlighting your limitations.

[Atrax Robustus]

Nothing . . . . . . . no thing.

Discuss.

[bgbarber]

Your speculation would be better rewarded in a physics forum then. But of course you realise that, and there's more to the story.

What can I talk about in Fantasy Island? I read an interesting article about multi-universes but as Gary mentioned prior its is probably beyond our capacity to conceive.

[bgbarber]

It's not about what you're not able to discuss here, BGB. I was merely doing the equivalent of suggesting it's wise to go to the butcher's for meat, as you won't find a lot of it in the hardware store, unless by coincidence.

Completely agree. But people often both get hungry and need to make house repairs - actually I saw a BBQ cooking up a storm out front of Bunnings last time I went.

[kencooke]

Personally I think it is an important question that is worth speculating (or hypothesize)

I agree that it is a very interesting question for the genuinely curious but can't see why it is important.

[bgbarber]

I agree that it is a very interesting question for the genuinely curious but can't see why it is important.

Fair play - that is your opinion. The concept (and associated concepts) has been the subject of and touched upon via a few books though "Mind of God" Paul Davies is one example. So really I was inquiring as to if it does set off any opinions or thoughts on the matter.

[bgbarber]

And would you be prepared to base any apophenic belief system on that singular occurrence of meat at one hardware store?

BTW, please clarify that the "storm" which was being cooked up was a figure of speech only. I should hate for future scholars, looking for the Word Of The Profit Black, to mistakenly believe that hardware stores in this era sold machines capable of creating wild weather events.

BBQ creating storms? - did not see any butterflies around to set off such an event thank God as had my washing out.

[bgbarber]

Did you say "actually I saw a BBQ cooking up a storm" earlier? Perhaps you meant "figuratively" vice "actually"?

God does your washing?

Blame the Australian influence on English. Some of my non-aussie friends are somtimes puzzled when asked if they would like to visit a friends place as they were "cooking a BBQ" .

[Jaar-Gilon]

bgbarber I have posted this video before, both here and in the science section. It is a talk given by Laurence Krauss on where some of the current thinking of physics is at regarding the origin of the universe.

I would love to hear what a theist thinks of it, none of them that were here posted on it when I originally posted, probably didn't even watch it!

7ImvlS8PLIo

[bgbarber]

bgbarber I have posted this video before, both here and in the science section. It is a talk given by Laurence Krauss on where some of the current thinking of physics is at regarding the origin of the universe.

I would love to hear what a theist thinks of it, none of them that were here posted on it when I originally posted, probably didn't even watch it!

7ImvlS8PLIo

I will commit to watching it - it is over an hour long so give me some time to give a response/opinion prob later in week . The bandwidth fascists at Telstra are giving me grief on my account (nearly at limit).

[Atrax Robustus]

I will commit to watching it - it is over an hour long so give me some time to give a response/opinion prob later in week . The bandwidth fascists at Telstra are giving me grief on my account (nearly at limit).

Try downloading some peer reviewed literature. Less bandwidth and it might close the gap that you're currently squeezing your imaginary friend into.

Any thoughts on nothing vs no thing?

[wearestardust]

those that simply make it up

You mean theists, I presume?

[wearestardust]

Having returned from purgatory I am now back in Fantasy Island (oh the irony of it). I would like to ask of the rational (atheist and others) about the concept of “nothing”.
Now before my straw bones are blown away via a hurricane of postal fury allow me to clarify. How do rational scientific thinkers, irrational scientific thinkers and those that simply make it up, explain the conditions prior to and causing the “big bang” (and I mean in context of the universe for all you party people and revolutionaries alike).

And I'm interested to know: what is the point of this question? Where are you going? It is a basic courtesy, when asking a question, to indicate what the point of it is so that a satisfactory answer can be elicited. Indeed, in academia, professional writing, or pretty much any communication medium where the objective is actually to communicate (as opposed to, say, being a smartarse), the norm is to set out in summary where you are going before going there.

[nettybetty]

Who said that the big bang came from nothing? Last time I checked, the big bang was the expansion of matter...thus the matter already existed. I just borrowed Roger Penrose's book on the Universe from the library, so maybe in few months I'll be able to tell you more. But really if you are after the physics as has been said you are in the wrong place unless by coincidence we have a quantum cosmologist floating around here.

I don't really see the point of this, nothing is nothing....though nothing is still technically something...it seems like a sly game of semantics rather than a discussion.

[bgbarber]

Try downloading some peer reviewed literature. Less bandwidth and it might close the gap that you're currently squeezing your imaginary friend into.

Any thoughts on nothing vs no thing?

I did mention one publication called the "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies which did not appear to raise any discussion points. Peer reviewed literature - do you have any of authored by yourself I could review - be happy to.

Who is this imaginary friend you are referring to?

[bgbarber]

Who said that the big bang came from nothing? Last time I checked, the big bang was the expansion of matter...thus the matter already existed. I just borrowed Roger Penrose's book on the Universe from the library, so maybe in few months I'll be able to tell you more. But really if you are after the physics as has been said you are in the wrong place unless by coincidence we have a quantum cosmologist floating around here.

I don't really see the point of this, nothing is nothing....though nothing is still technically something...it seems like a sly game of semantics rather than a discussion.

This is fantasy island (which I was involuntarily assigned to). In relation to using the lack of knowledge of physics to fend off discussion on subject matters then one also needs to acknowledge that by using physics in future to prove a point or dismiss an argument would be deemed somewhat hypocritical - cannot have your cake and eat it too (no nasty personal responses please)

[nari]

It seems that theists abhor a vacuum. Therefore they like to fill it with imaginary figures who make them feel better about the nothing concept.
They often abhor uncertainty; therefore: ditto.

Unfortunately making up stories about nothing being Something doesn't solve the problem.

Anyhow, why is the issue so important? Can anyone prove that nothing was Something??? Nope...not yet. In the meantime we can get on with living and leave this to the astrophysicists whose bread and butter revolves on such topics.

nari

[bgbarber]

It seems that theists abhor a vacuum. Therefore they like to fill it with imaginary figures who make them feel better about the nothing concept.
They often abhor uncertainty; therefore: ditto.

Unfortunately making up stories about nothing being Something doesn't solve the problem.

Anyhow, why is the issue so important? Can anyone prove that nothing was Something??? Nope...not yet. In the meantime we can get on with living and leave this to the astrophysicists whose bread and butter revolves on such topics.

nari

So are you advocating leaving scientific viewpoints out of such discussions altogether - that sounds a little unreasonable surely.

[Fearless]

So are you advocating leaving scientific viewpoints out of such discussions altogether - that sounds a little unreasonable surely.

A few posts now have clearly stated that no, we don't have the answers, we are not the most qualified to give the answers, sure it's an amazing subject and we hope to see an answer one day ourselves... it may not even come in our lifetime who knows.

What more do you want?

[bgbarber]

A few posts now have clearly stated that no, we don't have the answers, we are not the most qualified to give the answers, sure it's an amazing subject and we hope to see an answer one day ourselves... it may not even come in our lifetime who knows.

What more do you want?

Of course I understand nobody really has the answer. I was just after discussions on current theories and the possible wider implications for ourselves and what we believe to be true. I read an interesting article about the subject by the Astronomer Royal Martin Rees on the subject and his current thoughts.

[bgbarber]

I agree that it is a very interesting question for the genuinely curious but can't see why it is important.

Sorry kencooke - I know I responded to this post prior but to add I feel it is important to at least attempt to formulate some sort of "belief" even in the absence of not being able to prove it as such. I am trying to articulate why I (not just me!) speculate on such questions. Without even visiting such fundamental questions all further questions or answers are not backed by a coherent "story" and as a result holes begin to appear.

The story of evolution is a great example - how did we evolve? This question drove Charles Darwin to great things. The question in question I am trying to highlight is different only in frames of time although the context is expanded - so in this light I feel it is important.

[Fearless]

Of course I understand nobody really has the answer. I was just after discussions on current theories and the possible wider implications for ourselves and what we believe to be true. I read an interesting article about the subject by the Astronomer Royal Martin Rees on the subject and his current thoughts.

I am not meaning to be condescending here but to be honest if you had written that much earlier you may have had some different responses.

Even now, just by reading your reply I am curious for just a snippet of the interesting article you read and what your view on it might be.

[Dan Gleibitz]

The concept (and associated concepts) has been the subject of and touched upon via a few books though "Mind of God" Paul Davies is one example.
I like that book, and have read several of his (he leaves a 'gap' that doesn't bother me much).

Did you understand the hypothesis he put forward (I think it was that book, but it may have been Goldilocks)? It was the first time I felt I could get my mind around the concept as he explained it. Maybe because I've failed to finish Hawkings several times!

If you want to know might have come before, you first need to acknowledge that "before" requires time, and explain how time can exist outside of a universe.

I see your "what came before" and raise you a "what before?".

If modern thought has moved on in the last ~7 years, please disregard. :)

[bgbarber]

I am not meaning to be condescending here but to be honest if you had written that much earlier you may have had some different responses.

Even now, just by reading your reply I am curious for just a snippet of the interesting article you read and what your view on it might be.

Hi Fearless - just to respond sometimes leading up to questions provides more background info to the question than simply asking straight out. Especially when my initial post open statement as to what theories people believe etc - this is how context is developed.

So back to Rees - he ponders why would a universe even bother to exist and if so, why would it increase in complexity? The subjects are metaphysical and even philosophical but a scientist of his stature acknowledges the need and benefits of approaching these questions from this manner.

[kencooke]

The story of evolution is a great example - how did we evolve? This question drove Charles Darwin to great things. The question in question I am trying to highlight is different only in frames of time although the context is expanded - so in this light I feel it is important.

The knowledge of the mechanisms by which living things evolve and continue to evolve has significant practical usefulness, for example for the understanding and treatment of infectious diseases.

I can't at the moment think of anything useful that might arise out of knowing the cause for the Big Bang although I would have to admit that at the time Darwin lived, understanding the mechanism of evolution did not have any foreseeable practical implications.

Could you be more specific as to why you think that this is an important line of research? Are there any practical implications? Will it change the way we live, for better or worse if we knew the answer?

[Atrax Robustus]

I did mention one publication called the "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies which did not appear to raise any discussion points.

Mate - you cited Paul Davies from a populist piece of religiotrash from 1992 . . . Why would most people BOTHER to discuss it? BTW - I think you might benefit by expanding the sources of your reading.

Peer reviewed literature - do you have any of authored by yourself I could review - be happy to. The published articles that I authored and co-authored have no bearing on tis subject - unless someone has started quote-mining papers on the subject of interferometry.[/quote]

Who is this imaginary friend you are referring to?

You don't know his/her/its name?

. . . why would a universe even bother to exist and if so, why would it increase in complexity? . . .

Anthropomorphism is not a sound basis for reasoned discussion. Do you do this sort of thing often?

[nettybetty]

This is fantasy island (which I was involuntarily assigned to). In relation to using the lack of knowledge of physics to fend off discussion on subject matters then one also needs to acknowledge that by using physics in future to prove a point or dismiss an argument would be deemed somewhat hypocritical - cannot have your cake and eat it too (no nasty personal responses please)

So because physics can't explain it all, you can't use physics to explain what is known? It's a bit like saying well we can't cure cancer, so we may as well not treat anything. That doesn't make sense. I understand that the universal explanations are highly theoretical, but they do lie within mathematical proofs and some evidence. And from what I have read, there are universal constants - I've got a book by Roger Penrose which I'm hoping to start soon which will hopefully help me understand this a bit better. As for Paul Davies, he is on my 'to read' list, but I've been a bit tied up with other books and work related reading.

Furthermore, just out of curiosity, are you an astrophysicist? In order to state that physics can't explain things, then you need to know what it currently can explain. Just from looking at literature, compared to a textbook/popular science book, the knowledge in the field is much greater than what is in the general sphere, and it often takes time for the groundbreaking discoveries to work their way into textbooks/popular science.

As already mentioned here, people have said that it's way out of their league, myself included. You asked someone for their own peer reviewed literature, well where is yours proving your beliefs?

And what is that "no nasty personal responses" - that's sounds like someone trying to get a nasty personal message ie. prove their notions that atheists are mean.

[nettybetty]

Sorry kencooke - I know I responded to this post prior but to add I feel it is important to at least attempt to formulate some sort of "belief" even in the absence of not being able to prove it as such. I am trying to articulate why I (not just me!) speculate on such questions. Without even visiting such fundamental questions all further questions or answers are not backed by a coherent "story" and as a result holes begin to appear.

The story of evolution is a great example - how did we evolve? This question drove Charles Darwin to great things. The question in question I am trying to highlight is different only in frames of time although the context is expanded - so in this light I feel it is important.

The quest was to study the natural world not for evolution...Darwin formulated the theory of evolution based on his observations, although there were other theories about evolution were being hypothesised at the time. Darwin's quest to study the world is what led to great things. His theory was based on observation, unlike filling a void with a belief which cannot be substantiated. Filling a void with an unsubstantiated belief seems irrational, and comes back to the, "well we can't explain it, so what - it was magic pixies?"

[bgbarber]

Mate - you cited Paul Davies from a populist piece of religiotrash from 1992 . . . Why would most people BOTHER to discuss it? BTW - I think you might benefit by expanding the sources of your reading.

The published articles that I authored and co-authored have no bearing on tis subject - unless someone has started quote-mining papers on the subject of interferometry.



You don't know his/her/its name?



Anthropomorphism is not a sound basis for reasoned discussion. Do you do this sort of thing often?[/quote]

"Why would most people BOTHER to discuss it?" - because I would argue that his scientific credentials may qualify that it is worth discussing – would you not agree? Why is some scientific based material OK to use in argument while others are not? Who decides? I thought scientific based principles and theories are good ones for argument and discussion?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

In that case, what are his credentials? What sort of mainstream qualifications does he possess? I do not know who he is, so I am asking.

There is a sound difference between science and pseudoscience. One of them is valid, and the other is not.

[bgbarber]

In that case, what are his credentials? What sort of mainstream qualifications does he possess? I do not know who he is, so I am asking.

There is a sound difference between science and pseudoscience. One of them is valid, and the other is not.

Just going to post a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

I assume all is correct (althougth it is WikiPedia)

[bgbarber]

So because physics can't explain it all, you can't use physics to explain what is known? It's a bit like saying well we can't cure cancer, so we may as well not treat anything. That doesn't make sense. I understand that the universal explanations are highly theoretical, but they do lie within mathematical proofs and some evidence. And from what I have read, there are universal constants - I've got a book by Roger Penrose which I'm hoping to start soon which will hopefully help me understand this a bit better. As for Paul Davies, he is on my 'to read' list, but I've been a bit tied up with other books and work related reading.

Furthermore, just out of curiosity, are you an astrophysicist? In order to state that physics can't explain things, then you need to know what it currently can explain. Just from looking at literature, compared to a textbook/popular science book, the knowledge in the field is much greater than what is in the general sphere, and it often takes time for the groundbreaking discoveries to work their way into textbooks/popular science.

As already mentioned here, people have said that it's way out of their league, myself included. You asked someone for their own peer reviewed literature, well where is yours proving your beliefs?

And what is that "no nasty personal responses" - that's sounds like someone trying to get a nasty personal message ie. prove their notions that atheists are mean.

No I am not an astrophysicist, however I enjoy reading about the concepts around such.

Mathematical constants are fascinating I agree. The "no nasty personal" messages was an attempt to not make disagreement escalate into something worse - it was not intended to be personal to you as it is visible to all.

[Atrax Robustus]

"Why would most people BOTHER to discuss it?" - because I would argue that his scientific credentials may qualify that it is worth discussing – would you not agree?

No. I don't agree. In fact I suspect that, like many who chose to take on the scientific evidence for theism argument, Paul Davies is a well established poster boy. Why? Because someone who has very credible scientific qualifications wrote a book that supports theism (and Intelligent Design in Mind of God). It's an argument from authority - invalid.

Why is some scientific based material OK to use in argument while others are not? Who decides? I thought scientific based principles and theories are good ones for argument and discussion?

Scientific principles and theories are valid for reasoned discussion. It is the discussion and outcome of peer review that decides what is valid and what is not. Populist books might sway the opinion of the mis-informed and ignorant but fact and evidence, supported by repeatable experiment and consistent results, is what contributes to collective knowledge and understanding.

Pseudoscience and wibble that kowtows to organised religion (both your cited authors have produced this piffle) is not worth the paper its written on - at least to a reader who possesses a modicum of science fundamentals and can exercise even rudimentary levels of skepticism.

Face up to it, you cite Davies and Rees simply because their writings support your worldview - no scientific knowledge was required for you to reach the conclusion that they are your poster-boys.

Expand your reading base.

[bgbarber]

[/font]

No. I don't agree. In fact I suspect that, like many who chose to take on the scientific evidence for theism argument, Paul Davies is a well established poster boy. Why? Because someone who has very credible scientific qualifications wrote a book that supports theism (and Intelligent Design in Mind of God). It's an argument from authority - invalid.

[font=&quot]

Scientific principles and theories are valid for reasoned discussion. It is the discussion and outcome of peer review that decides what is valid and what is not. Populist books might sway the opinion of the mis-informed and ignorant but fact and evidence, supported by repeatable experiment and consistent results, is what contributes to collective knowledge and understanding.

Pseudoscience and wibble that kowtows to organised religion (both your cited authors have produced this piffle) is not worth the paper its written on - at least to a reader who possesses a modicum of science fundamentals and can exercise even rudimentary levels of skepticism.

Face up to it, you cite Davies and Rees simply because their writings support your worldview - no scientific knowledge was required for you to reach the conclusion that they are your poster-boys.

Expand your reading base.

Maybe I have mis-interpreted your argument but is what you are stating that acceptance of scientific argument will only be deemed accceptable if it comes from a personal non-belief in theism regadless of the strength of the scientific method? How can this be reconciled - only atheist science is "real science".

Are you kidding? Rees is no poster boy - he IS one of the most eminent cosmologist/ astrophysicists in the world. He also has inferred on may occasions that one cannot approach knowledge only scientific approaches. He also is at pains to point out scientific endeavour is as such.

[Atrax Robustus]

Maybe I have mis-interpreted your argument but is what you are stating that acceptance of scientific argument will only be deemed accceptable if it comes from a personal non-belief in theism regadless of the strength of the scientific method? How can this be reconciled - only atheist science is "real science".

I'll allow you to offer the mis-interpretation defence . . . once.

No.

Acceptance of scientific argument is irrelevant. Hypothesis is just . . . hypothesis (including speculation about gods and intelligent design). Evidence and demonstrated results are what constitute "real science".

Are you kidding? Rees is no poster boy - he IS one of the most eminent cosmologist/ astrophysicists in the world. He also has inferred on may occasions that one cannot approach knowledge only scientific approaches. He also is at pains to point out scientific endeavour is as such.

Again - I wouldn't have the temerity to challenge his scientific credentials - the man is absolutely brilliant. Unforunately, he is also a published proponent of NOMA. For that reason, theists have his centrefold stuck on the wall right beside Paul Davies.

. . . again - your position is an argument from authority.

[bgbarber]

I'll allow you to offer the mis-interpretation defence . . . once.

No.

Acceptance of scientific argument is irrelevant. Hypothesis is just . . . hypothesis (including speculation about gods and intelligent design). Evidence and demonstrated results are what constitute "real science".



Again - I wouldn't have the temerity to challenge his scientific credentials - the man is absolutely brilliant. Unforunately, he is also a published proponent of NOMA. For that reason, theists have his centrefold stuck on the wall right beside Paul Davies.

. . . again - your position is an argument from authority.

"Acceptance of scientific argument is irrelevant. Hypothesis is just . . . hypothesis (including speculation about gods and intelligent design). Evidence and demonstrated results are what constitute "real science"


mmm. Does not some discovery start with "Hypothesis". Science is not just observation and experiment - there is a concept of abstraction and making connections between previously disconnected concepts. This is the problem with Dawkins – via his own thought processes he is trapped in his own empirical cell unable to see outside of his 3 walled DNA prism.

[Caio]

There is no "theory"(in the scientific sense) about any "before"(whatever that means?!?!) the big bang at the moment. There are various hypothesis though. The idea of a plethora of universes, or a multiverse, coming in and out of existence. Or the idea that the universe is continuously going through cycles of big bangs and big crunches, constantly recycling itself...m-theory, that we are on a higher dimensional plane of existence, and that when two "branes" collide they cause a big bang.
All this is pure hypothesis, each with varying degrees of scientific credibility, each more complicated than the next. Short answer is we don't know...this the sort of answer you were after??

[bgbarber]

@BGB: I thought we were over strawmanning Dawkins by now.

If you actually believe he's "trapped", as you put it, cite instances.


Word - got a bit carried away - was on one. I do like my metaphors (i am an INFP ) :-)

[bgbarber]

Well, BGB, I invite you to retract your incorrect insinuation about Dawkins.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/edit.gif is how it's done. Can't have you being carried away, can we?


Sorry - I will have to live with it. I believe my prior post highlighted this.

[bgbarber]

Well then... if you cannot edit the post, I can, but we will need to see you apologise to the readers for strawmanning, and a statement that you would have willingly edited the post, had you been able.

Then, I will edit the post to a wording you define here.
===========
"Acceptance of scientific argument is irrelevant. Hypothesis is just . . . hypothesis (including speculation about gods and intelligent design). Evidence and demonstrated results are what constitute "real science"


mmm. Does not some discovery start with "Hypothesis". Science is not just observation and experiment - there is a concept of abstraction and making connections between previously disconnected concepts. This is the problem with Dawkins – via his own thought processes he is trapped in his own empirical cell unable to see outside of his 3 walled DNA prism.
===========
You should be able to edit that under the Reply With Quote facility. I will then paste it in the original, and remove this template.

That prose about Dawkins is about as personally insulting as the graphic you posted with my username splashed on it about some spammish blah - some perspective please.

[bgbarber]

So, will you edit, or not, BGB?

The issue here is "unsupported argument".

Let me clarify your request. You are asking me to edit a prior post in "fanstasy Island" on the basis of "unsupported argument".

Id this not what forums are for? To debate and debunk such unsupported arguments (in Fanstasy Island) using thr majic of the the "reply" not edit original posts made in the context of larger arguments - that is censorship.

[davo]

http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq343/MHather/Others/worf.gif

I mentioned in another thread, if you are going to make claims about anyone and are called on providing reasoning for those claims, but basically refuse too, it is just mudslinging and a waste of time for those trying to be in dialog with you.

You have started your journey here doing as much and was called on it, but continue to do it regardless of people asking you directly for reasoning. if you continue one more time to skirt doing so, regardless of repeated requests by users you will be banned by me.

I have had enough of seeing these type of threads blowing out and out with folk like yourself just continually doing this, it's like seeing how much mud you can throw on a wall and see if it sticks, it doesn't matter if there is a controversy or not. You get some perverse feeling of accomplishment or something having it on such a prestigious board (probably because all the religious ones are rather .. lame?)

I've seen this too much and it's a basic creationist tactic as well. So long as they get airplay it does not matter if they are called on it or not, they just want it to appear that they have 'a case'.

At least show us the reasoning behind your claims when you make them, you have been asked regularly and I have noted that you just avoid doing so with questions back to the requester, or repeat performances. It's tiring and taking up too much of mod time and user time trying to respond to your wild assertions with common decency in this regard, and rather than watch the mods and users here running the gauntlet in responding to you, I'm making the call:

Claims regarding people and their position must be made with reasoning and/or evidence, otherwise you are just looking for a platform to continually do it without response to direct queries to do it, so ban hammer from me. simple. One more time and you are out. One more shifting the burden of proof by making nothing more than wild assertions and I will tire of seeing your name come up yet again, and will favour those that actually are willing to be in dialog with common courtesy, rather than the veiled appearance of it.

Anyway, that's my contribution to the discussion, it's about all the value I see in contributing to the trolling it appears to be, and 5 mins out of my life I won't do again :P

I would have PM'd this, but I liked the pictures.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3290566525_994bb78db1.jpg

[wearestardust]

I note bgbarber has not had the courtesy to respond to us in respect of my earlier question at post #27.

I would have preferred if bgbarber had been honest enough to answer it himself, but I'll have a go. I suspect the point of raising the origins of the universe is to create a gap for god somewhere in our lack of knowledge. But if that is the case, then the discussion we are having is pointless. The question which I think bgbarber is trying to get at is:

"if science cannot provide an answer to why the universe is here, then is it reasonable to assert god"
which is entirely different the actual question we seem to be discussing and, in terms of bgbarber's probably objective, wasting our time:

"what does science know about the origins of the universe"
In my earlier post I commented that signposting where you are going underpins effective communication: I think I have confirmation of my remark.


Turning to another issue: Paul Davies. Yes he is very well credentialled. But we can't take whatever he writes to be reliable just because he is well credentialed. That is the antithesis of reason. From what I recall, and refreshing myself with wiki doesn't provide any evidence for god. All he does is say, in effect, "the universe is realy complex and cool, and, and, so, and, there must be something going on".

Which is an example of the argument from incredulity.

I read TMOG when it was still fresh and new - and I was a committed Christian - and even then, as a Christian, I found it intellectually unsatisfying for the reasons I just advanced.

[Fearless]

I am sorry to all the people who were hoping to get answers to your questions from bgbarber, but it has been decided that his conduct is not acceptable even after countless warnings. He is now banned permanently for baiting and trolling, failing to respond to questions and back claims made. As with many, he had his own agenda and wasn't interested in qualifying any of it.

If you felt that there was a chance that you would have your questions answered satisfactorily then you may have been waiting a long time anyway.

I will leave his threads open to debrief if needed but may close them if necessary down the track.

Cheers

[Atrax Robustus]

Oh well . . . next?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Mr Black: Well you know how it goes:

Theist goes ballistic on atheist forum with the "Ask me anything about Jebus" attitude.
Users have to put up with incoherent rambling.
Theist gets access restricted.
Theist starts some threads in a futile attempt to prove a god.
Users ask questions.
Theist dodges questions and trolls and somehow this is meant to be proof of a god.
Repeat previous 2-3 steps above.
Theist gets 0wn3d by a l33t m0d.
Theist uses contact form to whinge about how intolerant we are and how (s)he has been persecuted.

Funny enough similar shit happens in real life too.