Featured Scientists create living eating and growing machines...

No he doesn't. I'm being VERY generous here by assuming the video didn't actually cut anything he said between his two things. So, his "claim" was this:

Something can come from nothing, if we can dispute what's meant by nothing.

That nice IF qualifier there makes the claim entirely logically valid. If we redefine "nothing" as something, then *drumroll* it's something. He uses poor word choices, which is why the priest laughs. I might laugh too in a similar situation because it does sound humorous. But only superficially.

"Nothing" is a philosophical / metaphysical construct. "Nothing" does not physically exist as far as we know. It might be a defensive method in our own heads in trying to make sense of the universe. And pretty much nothing else. Heh.

His claim there is entirely in the realm of philosophy, since he's talking about redefining the word. To mean something that's more correct, but highly un-intuitive: That there is always something, even with the appearance of nothing.

For example: You personally don't have any working knowledge of quantum mechanics, which you earlier in fact labeled as "false" because you didn't understand what was being said. To your mind, those effects are practically not there; You cannot feel, see, hear or taste them. In fact, it almost seems like you don't even believe in it.

But not even a vacuum is "nothingness."

You would need the context of the entire discussion to really tell anything about what he actually thinks. Which is what we don't have here. You posted two videos of highly edited content meant to skew attention to perceived mistakes. I'm certain he said more than just two damn sentences. You have been guilty of cherry picking and quote mining.

That being said: I am prepared to talk about the philosophical implications of "nothing." It's something VERY dear to me. And like i said, in standard cosmology, there was never something that could be labeled as "nothing." Dawkins knows this. He's not making any sort of scientific argument to begin with with this quote mined claim. It's an argument of philosophy and semantics. I suspect ONLY in attempt to simplify. And he was instantly vilified for it, unjustly.

Again: You simply do not have the capacity to understand what's actually being said by Dawkins. The fact that you specifically tried to use out of context character defamation videos confirms this.

-Did things for emphasis.

/E: I do need to add that he specifically says that there has got to be something, but that it seems more likely that this something is something extremely simple rather than a complex intelligent designer god. He actually says it in the first video. But he still gets laughed off.

 

Here is a un editted video. The same thing is clearly said. Dawkins believes the universe came from a very simplistic, non intelligent nothingness.

The reason i gave the editted version was because my approuch is to CUT TO THE CHASE.

 

Uh... Yes, like i suspected earlier, you don't understand what "nothing" actually means. For it to be nothing, it cannot have attributes. You cannot put attributes like "simplistic" or "non-intelligent" on nothingness. Nothing is the absence of all things. And things in this case extend to quantum physics.

His "nothing" is not *physical* nothingness at all. And he says an actually contradictory regarding his ACTUAL claims in the video: That he DOES believe that there had to be something, and that that something was probably something simple and non-intelligent, yes.

But even a supposed "nothing" with attributes is still something.

You're using Dawkins' philosophical argument and saying that it's what he actually believes. When it's not. He actually seems to believe in a simple, naturalistic "thing." Not nothing. This is from the videos.

No, i think you gave it because you were scrambling to find any comment of Dawkins saying the words you want him to say. Which is not as bad as purposefully trying to defame the guy, sure. But the result is this: You took him out of context.

I'm going to watch the video, but please, give me a proper reply of MY points next time. You have not addressed a SINGLE thing i said in the previous post, except the one where i want to see the whole discussion. You made the claim that you proudly create in-depth responses. PLEASE, use the same amount into an argument as i'm doing. Otherwise i'll stop giving this much effort.

/E: Yup yup. He actually says he's questioning Lawrence Krauss' statement of an universe from nothing in a discussion with him. Then he explains that it's counter-intuitive. Then he says the bit about something mysterious giving rise to the universe. Then some talk about science being a better answer than the alternative which is actually analogous to something from nothing. Then he says he's going to be talking about the origin of the universe with Krauss next week. Then he again restates that it's a very mysterious and interesting question.

And then... Someone ELSE asks him "how can something come from nothing? The Big Bang says something can from nothing."

Which is where those two videos come from. Him answering that stupid question. It is entirely quote mined and he did not actually ever say that HE believes ANYTHING came from nothing. And he actually says he's not really qualified to answer. Then he says this question is definitely NOT solved. Especially by postulating a deity.

That's about it. Your two earlier videos are taken out of context. He's actually stating some concepts only. Even worse: They have been scrambled to look like it was taken from a single discussion. But it's cut from different parts of the discussion to make it seem like he's saying what the editors wanted him to say.

Totally dishonest quote mines your earlier videos. This one was actually HIGHLY interesting.

 

Like i said. Lets cut to the chase.

You believe something simple created the universe that was not intelligent. Some kind of eternal energy source, that evolved to make the current universe, correct?

 

I watched the entire video. I even transcribed it mostly on my last post, edited in. Dawkins doesn't believe that something can come out of nothing. The entire claim was taken out of context, from multiple parts and made to look like he was talking about himself, even though he was actually just stating some of Krauss' concepts. Not his own.

I don't believe in any sort of eternal energy source, mostly because that's not physically possible. Also, this is the area of quantum mechanics.

I have zero idea what "caused" the Big Bang, especially in light of causality being born WITH the universe. Neither do you, Dawkins or Krauss.

This whole "universe from nothing" thing from Krauss is a philosophical debate. A very valid and interesting one in fact. But it's not a claim of physics. It's metaphysics.

 

Seriously?

What's with all this atheist stuff? Lots of theists believe in abiogenesis and evolution, and modern science isn't likely to prove any of this wrong. Modern science is why they believe it in the first place, and more evidence is uncovered every day, from a dozen different fields of study.
Apparently you'r not familiar with biology, nor with the many 'demonstrations' of life components or proto-life that have been observed.

Clarify, please. What speculation are you talking about?

Did I say 'no thing' did anything?I said no thing existed before time and space were created, in fact there was no "before" before time existed.
Folklore? Were the ancients sitting around the fire and talking about the Big Bang?
No, everything in cosmogony is based on empirical facts and observations.

I couldn't teach a course on it, but there are courses taught on it. You could research it. It's more than just conjecture.
Are there any reasonable alternatives?

Lots of false things are understood. Many people were well versed in phrenology or geocentric astronomy at one time.

Using the "impossible" laws of physics.

 

OK, lets be nice. Flagrant insults aren't going to accomplishing anything.

 

Saying someone is lying might not be nice, but it also doesn't make it an insult. Cold, callous, belligerent, sure. But it's not an insult.

Since he was making false claims of another forum member. I read the so called argument he even referenced. None of what he said happened there.

 

Good gravy man. Cut to the chase already.

In a sentence or two, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?

 

Thats funny because i cant even figure out how to backlog that fare back.

But, hey, if you figured it out. Post the link of me and christines debate on "something from nothing"?

Your saying i referenced it to you. No i didnt. I told you i could not find it and therefore to take my word for it.

 

But i'm trying to say there is no such argument. I can't prove an absence of thing. I found an argument or two with you and Christine regarding the universe and nowhere i saw anything analogous to "the universe came from nothing."

But i am sorry if my claims of you being a liar are hurting your feelings. That is not my intention.

These are my core "tenets:"

1. All things are impermanent / changing

2. All emotions lead to suffering. Even a totally "evil-free" act can result in perceived "evil." Vice versa for good things. Expecting for things to go one way or the other leads to disappointment, and suffering.

3. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence of themselves: I strongly believe in the effects of causality. But i do hold that this causality was born with the universe, not outside of it.

Those are the only things i'm letting myself "know." Everything else is a belief in my books. Even my understanding of science is provisional knowledge at best and subject to change. I put a strong emphasis on objective evidence. As in, evidence that can be verified by people other than just me.

/E: I am a Buddhist, and overall agnostic as far as religion goes. I have not chosen either atheism or theism because i lack knowledge of either. That does make me an atheist definition wise, but my beliefs are neither atheistic or theistic in of themselves. If a god magically appears in front of me, it's likely i'm either going to accept it or believe it's an illusion. That's about it.

 

Why is this difficult to believe?
The chemical interactions that gave rise to life have been observed in the lab. They're easily reproducible. It's all familiar, basic, reproducible chemistry.
Are you seriously saying the alternative, magic poofing, is more reasonable?

Now this I can't counter with any evidence, provided He retired after He did it.
How the physical and mathematical constants came to be what they are is unknown, but, once in place, the resulting universe is pretty much locked in. No further intervention is necessary, nor is there any evidence of any intentional manipulation. If there's a God, He left the stage long ago.

"Something" didn't create the universe. What's with this obsession with intention and agency?
The universe happened. How is unknown and under investigation. There is no evidence of intention or purpose involved.

 

Nope. And these are not insults-- you just don't like it when people tell the truth about your sources, which are always lies or Straw Man "argument".

Oh well.

You can lead a Creationist To Knowledge, but you can not make him think.

 

100% preaching, not one single thing that is accurate or factual in your entire list of Fantasy.

Sad.

 

So? You think I respect him or worse.... worship Dawkins?

Argument From Authority Logical Fallacy.

 

Do you have the link? Because she told me she belives something came from nothing.

Its alright. Ill get use to it, lol

Ok....no disagreement yet.

Ok....no disagreement there and also a good thing to constantly remember.

I dont agree or disagree with this. I dont understand what your trying to say here.

Ok....no disagreement or agreement, but a question: if causality was born with the universe, then what borned or caused the universe and causality?

Ok, sure, agreed, why not.

Your agnostic? Oh my god! Lol. Well, i disagree there. Im a full fledged theist.

 

I actually suggest watching the full video he also posted. It's actually very interesting and does come up with some points. My perception of Dawkins isn't great... But he did fine.

 

I agree. But do you concede dawkins is saying something came from nothing?

 

I read it on my phone earlier because i was taking a dump, like i said. It's not in my interest to go look for something that doesn't exist. You're still making definite claims of another forum member. Without having the evidence to show it to be true. That's still a bit dishonest.

It means things require "cause" as far as causality has existed. I.E Even a concept like "yourself" is a "construct" of prior phenomena and experiences. Buddhism argues specifically that the self exists only as a construct of this kind. Metaphysically speaking, this statement is incredibly difficult to dismantle. Whenever you try to "quantify" a self, you always compare a sum of its parts instead.

Very materialistically speaking, it can also infer that indeed there might not be anything beyond the material existence. Actual knowledge regarding this is suspect though. Not many people have experienced afterlife, and specifically, came back and told us about it.

Entirely uncertain.

Only categorically and through definitions. I never think of gods / deities, their existence or their non-existence. Beyond when i discuss it specifically, and even then it's only a concept for me since i have no experience.

I'm one of those people who really have not chosen either way.

 

In the full video, he does not actually say it. So you should probably stop trying to perpetuate this claim. Watch the video.

Dawkins believes the universe came about through something mysterious and probably simplistic. Those are his actual words.

The "Something from nothing" thing is taken ENTIRELY out of context, edited and made to look like that's what he thinks. It's not. Watch the full video.