Teaser question...

[All Becomes New]

And even if Dawkins said something like that, atheism has no popes.

Christianity, in large part, doesn't have popes either.

 

[Moral Orel]

You can view it that way if you want, but that doesn't mean it is true. It could be possible, for example, that I think talking about these things with you is simply not getting us anywhere.

I think we both know I'm right. But mostly it was a reference to your claims that you know you've defeated atheists in the past in debate because they stopped replying to you.

I do still stand by the fact that ethically you should support your claims about Dawkins' beliefs on the origins of the universe or retract them. It's all well and good to make generalized statements about what you think atheists must believe, but once you go specific like that it's a very different thing.

 

[All Becomes New]

I think we both know I'm right. But mostly it was a reference to your claims that you know you've defeated atheists in the past in debate because they stopped replying to you.

I do still stand by the fact that ethically you should support your claims about Dawkins' beliefs on the origins of the universe or retract them. It's all well and good to make generalized statements about what you think atheists must believe, but once you go specific like that it's a very different thing.

Would you like me to find a clip of him saying this? I could probably find it, it might take some digging, but I probably could.

And I honestly had a bit of a chuckle when you said "I think we both know I'm right." How presumptuous!

 

[Moral Orel]

And even if Dawkins said something like that, atheism has no popes.

In his defense, I did ask him for a single example of anyone claiming the universe coming into existence from nothing originally. I've recently noticed that theists like to claim atheists believe that even though no one actually makes that claim. In fact, it is only theists (not all theists) who believe God created stuff from nothing, which makes the whole tactic so dishonest.

 

[Moral Orel]

Would you like me to find a clip of him saying this? I could probably find it, it might take some digging, but I probably could.

Yes. With plenty of context. Dawkins is good friends with a fella by the name of Lawrence Krauss who actually wrote a book called, "A Universe From Nothing". But he doesn't mean "nothing" like you're using it. He's talking about empty space.

 

[All Becomes New]

Yes. With plenty of context. Dawkins is good friends with a fella by the name of Lawrence Krauss who actually wrote a book called, "A Universe From Nothing". But he doesn't mean "nothing" like you're using it. He's talking about empty space.

Fair enough. I found this in about 20 seconds. If you want to see the full context, I'm sure there's a video for that as well. I'd be happy to look for it for you, but this is basically it.

 

[All Becomes New]

@Moral Orel, this was the next video in the queue.

 

[Moral Orel]

@Moral Orel, this was the next video in the queue.

Boom! Nailed it! See, he referenced Krauss.

 

[All Becomes New]

Boom! Nailed it! See, he referenced Krauss.

So what is the problem exactly? Why does him referencing Krauss mean it is something he doesn't personally believe? Do you think he believes differently? Why would he be referencing Krauss if it was something he didn't believe? Do you have any evidence that he believes something different? From my PoV, Dawkins is making a claim about the universe and using Krauss as a sticking point for why he holds that belief. Unless Dawkins is not talking about what he believes in which case I'm not sure why he is talking about Krauss' theory at all.

 

[All Becomes New]

Boom! Nailed it! See, he referenced Krauss.

I'm sure all that secret handshake stuff is very convincing for an atheist, but it doesn't actually say anything about Dawkins not believing what Krauss has said about things unless you can show this is the case. The facts are that Dawkins said nothing isn't actually nothing. Now if Dawkins doesn't actually believe that, then why would he say it? And if he said it as some sort of nod to Krauss, then we have to look at what Krauss has said about it. So then you're left with the same problem, only now it is Krauss we are talking about and not Dawkins.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm sure all that secret handshake stuff is very convincing for an atheist, but it doesn't actually say anything about Dawkins not believing what Krauss has said about things unless you can show this is the case. The facts are that Dawkins said nothing isn't actually nothing. Now if Dawkins doesn't actually believe that, then why would he say it? And if he said it as some sort of nod to Krauss, then we have to look at what Krauss has said about it. So then you're left with the same problem, only now it is Krauss we are talking about and not Dawkins.

Dawkins does ascribe to what Krauss said, that's the point. They both ascribe to the idea that the universe came from something and that something is empty space, which some folk would call "nothing", but that is not the kind of "nothing" you're talking about.

Feel free to bemoan how misleading you think it is to call something "nothing", but the fact remains Dawkins does not believe the universe came from actual nothing, so your claim about him was false.

 

[All Becomes New]

Dawkins does ascribe to what Krauss said, that's the point. They both ascribe to the idea that the universe came from something and that something is empty space, which some folk would call "nothing", but that is not the kind of "nothing" you're talking about.

Feel free to bemoan how misleading you think it is to call something "nothing", but the fact remains Dawkins does not believe the universe came from actual nothing, so your claim about him was false.

Okay??? I'm not really sure what "empty space" is. Is it a "space" with "nothing" in it? Then where did matter come from? At one point there was not any matter, and then there was matter. So where did the matter come from? Did it "invent" itself just as Theists invented God? So, there was clearly something spectacular that cause matter to exist, right? So I am not really sure how calling it "empty space" actually solves anything as far as saying it was caused by nature. Point out where I am wrong in my logic any time in this. As far as I can see, this "empty space" isn't anything anyone actually understands what it is. So why isn't it God, practically speaking? So then certain characteristics get associated with this "empty space" such as that it is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, which we currently view as God. Not sure how this disproves God exists at all.

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay??? I'm not really sure what "empty space" is. Is it a "space" with "nothing" in it?

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of it, that's what the Science subforum is for. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then you don't know enough to talk about it in an argument, sorry.

As far as I can see, this "empty space" isn't anything anyone actually understands what it is.

No, you don't understand what it is. Just because you don't know doesn't mean that no one knows anything about it.

Not sure how this disproves God exists at all.

I never said I was making any sort of attempt to. You made a claim about what atheists believe and you were wrong. Dead wrong.

 

[All Becomes New]

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of it, that's what the Science subforum is for. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then you don't know enough to talk about it in an argument, sorry.

Why shouldn't we talk about this in this thread?

No, you don't understand what it is. Just because you don't know doesn't mean that no one knows anything about it.

I'm basically just repeating what Dawkins said about it.

I never said I was making any sort of attempt to. You made a claim about what atheists believe and you were wrong. Dead wrong.

I think the matter isn't exactly settled on this because I still don't know what "empty space" is or whether it actually has to do with nothing or if nothing is just a word used for convenience.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why shouldn't we talk about this in this thread?

Because you don't want to talk about it, you want me to feed you lines that you think you can shoot down without understanding the subject at all. That, and I'm no expert. I couldn't answer all your questions on the topic if you were genuinely curious.

I'm basically just repeating what Dawkins said about it.

No you're not. Not at all. Dawkins never said anything resembling what you're accusing him of. Again.

I think the matter isn't exactly settled on this because I still don't know what "empty space" is or whether it actually has to do with nothing or if nothing is just a word used for convenience.

Nothing is just a word used for convenience. If you have an empty box, you would say "there is nothing in this box". But that isn't technically true. Even if you removed all the air, and light, and whatever other particles that might be there, there is still space in that box, and space is not really "nothing"; it has dimensions. And even in a perfect vacuum, the space therein has a lot of stuff going on that you aren't aware of.

 

[All Becomes New]

Because you don't want to talk about it, you want me to feed you lines that you think you can shoot down without understanding the subject at all. That, and I'm no expert. I couldn't answer all your questions on the topic if you were genuinely curious.

I asked you to give an article for me to read earlier. So I think you are mistaken.

No you're not. Not at all. Dawkins never said anything resembling what you're accusing him of. Again.

I can go back and look at the direct quotes in the video if you want.

Nothing is just a word used for convenience. If you have an empty box, you would say "there is nothing in this box". But that isn't technically true. Even if you removed all the air, and light, and whatever other particles that might be there, there is still space in that box, and space is not really "nothing"; it has dimensions. And even in a perfect vacuum, the space therein has a lot of stuff going on that you aren't aware of.

Guess what? In the Ark of the Covenant guess what was in it to represent YHWH? Nothing. And Ark means box. So when you are talking about a box with air in it that demonstrates what caused the universe, guess what? We agree on that, I just think that is God and you don't.

 

[Moral Orel]

I asked you to give an article for me to read earlier. So I think you are mistaken.

I'm not mistaken. You've already attempted to "use logic" to argue against what I've said while in the midst of admitting you don't know what I'm talking about.

I can go back and look at the direct quotes in the video if you want.

Please do. Tell me the time stamp of your heavily edited video where Dawkins says, "Space is something that no one understands"

Guess what? In the Ark of the Covenant guess what was in it to represent YHWH? Nothing. And Ark means box. So when you are talking about a box with air in it that demonstrates what caused the universe, guess what? We agree on that, I just think that is God and you don't.

See? You don't want to talk about it, you want me to feed you lines that you think you can knock down without knowing anything about the subject. You're doing it right now. My box analogy doesn't do anything other than show you that space isn't "nothing".

 

[All Becomes New]

I'm not mistaken. You've already attempted to "use logic" to argue against what I've said while in the midst of admitting you don't know what I'm talking about.

Please do. Tell me the time stamp of your heavily edited video where Dawkins says, "Space is something that no one understands"

See? You don't want to talk about it, you want me to feed you lines that you think you can knock down without knowing anything about the subject. You're doing it right now. My box analogy doesn't do anything other than show you that space isn't "nothing".

Did you know you are being disingenuous? Because you are.

 

[Moral Orel]

Did you know you are being disingenuous? Because you are.

What is it that you think I am intentionally misrepresenting?

 

[All Becomes New]

What is it that you think I am intentionally misrepresenting?

What I am saying Dawkins has said, among other things. You even used quotation marks which didn't contain anything I had actually said.

I'll further add that it was not ANY space we were talking about, but the space that is described as being nothing, but not actually nothing. I'm gunna look for that direct quote from Dawkins now.

Basically, you have been sloppy in your language. You've said I am saying no one understands "space" which is not my argument, but my argument is about the specific "space" that was there before matter existed, which is what Dawkins has said about it.