Teaser question...

[Jesse Dornfeld]

@Moral Orel,

Here's a direct quote of Dawkins,
"[what Krauss describes in his book] Its literally nothing"
"Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe"

So on the one hand, he is saying it is "something" qualifying that with it being "mysterious" that gives rise to the origin of the universe, and on the other hand, he is saying what gives rise to the origins of the universe is "literally nothing".

Not sure how this isn't a contradiction.

So the question is whether anyone actually understands what this "mysterious" thing actually is. Clearly, it can be anything except God.

 

[Moral Orel]

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

Okay, let's revisit what you said:

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

Which I paraphrased in quotations as:

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

That is 100% accurate. You don't understand that because you don't understand that we are talking about space, which is a thing. Space is a thing. Spacetime is a thing. We aren't talking about outer space like it's a location. I'm talking about Krauss' actual theory, and you're talking about something else because you're arguing against a theory you've done zero research on!

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.

It's the same thing, man! No one is talking about a specific location in space, we're talking about space itself. If you didn't understand that already, then you have no place telling folks what Dawkins thinks!

Just stop, already. Think about what you are trying to argue. You're trying to prove logically what other people believe. Do you realize how crazy that is? You aren't trying to prove they're wrong, you're trying to prove what their position is in spite of their actual claims. And further, now that you're focused on Dawkins, you're trying to talk about a scientific theory that you haven't researched. You have to gather information before you make an argument, not during your argument. Why would you even have an argument before you have the information?!

 

[Moral Orel]

@Moral Orel,

Here's a direct quote of Dawkins,
"[what Krauss describes in his book] Its literally nothing"
"Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe"

So on the one hand, he is saying it is "something" qualifying that with it being "mysterious" that gives rise to the origin of the universe, and on the other hand, he is saying what gives rise to the origins of the universe is "literally nothing".

Not sure how this isn't a contradiction.

He also says that "nothing" is used differently by laymen than it is by people with a PhD in physics. When he says "It's literally nothing" he is talking to a person with a PhD in physics. (That's Krauss in the video you see from behind). Feel free to complain that his use of words is misleading, I'll even agree with you to an extent. But he clearly expresses repeatedly that when he says "nothing" he means "something" and "something" is what gave rise to the universe.

So the question is whether anyone actually understands what this "mysterious" thing actually is. Clearly, it can be anything except God.

No, the question is whether you are accurately representing the position of people you disagree with. You are not. We can't move on to whether their position is a good one or not until you actually understand what that position is.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Okay, let's revisit what you said:

Which I paraphrased in quotations as:

That is 100% accurate. You don't understand that because you don't understand that we are talking about space, which is a thing. Space is a thing. Spacetime is a thing. We aren't talking about outer space like it's a location. I'm talking about Krauss' actual theory, and you're talking about something else because you're arguing against a theory you've done zero research on!

It's accurate in what I said, not what I mean. I said "empty space" and I even bothered to put those two words together in quotations. But you see to be saying I am saying ALL "space" is something no one understands and that is NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about THE SPACE that was there before the universe existed and you have IGNORED this distinction.

It's the same thing, man! No one is talking about a specific location in space, we're talking about space itself. If you didn't understand that already, then you have no place telling folks what Dawkins thinks!

Ah, so this "specific space" that was there is the "same space" that we have and that they are both the same "empty space". So then I ask again how matter came into being at all? We don't have things popping into existence at any other time, right? What is stopping that from happening if we still see the same "empty space" now than we did at the origin of the universe? That still doesn't answer why Dawkins talks about this "Space" as though it was the cause for matter when we still have the same exact "space" today. Further, if it IS the case that all that existed before was "space" and then things were brought into existence like matter, then I would think logically, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" would be an valid explanation of things. Why isn't it?

Just stop, already. Think about what you are trying to argue. You're trying to prove logically what other people believe. Do you realize how crazy that is? You aren't trying to prove they're wrong, you're trying to prove what their position is in spite of their actual claims. And further, now that you're focused on Dawkins, you're trying to talk about a scientific theory that you haven't researched. You have to gather information before you make an argument, not during your argument. Why would you even have an argument before you have the information?!

It's not at all "in spite" of their claim, but based on "what" those claims actually are. If it's impossible to determine what people believe based on the claims they make about things, then I'm not sure we could ever know what other people believe about things at all. Is that really where you want to go with this? If I'm talking about scientific theory that I haven't researched, then naturally, my only choice is to go based on what people have said about this theory.

Also, I am not all about debate. In fact, I don't even like debate, or as you call it, "arguments". I'd much rather discuss things with people than argue about things.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's accurate in what I said, not what I mean. I said "empty space" and I even bothered to put those two words together in quotations. But you see to be saying I am saying ALL "space" is something no one understands and that is NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about THE SPACE that was there before the universe existed and you have IGNORED this distinction.

There is no distinction, it's the same stuff.

Ah, so this "specific space" that was there is the "same space" that we have and that they are both the same "empty space".

No, there's a universe here now, it isn't empty anymore.

So then I ask again how matter came into being at all? We don't have things popping into existence at any other time, right? What is stopping that from happening if we still see the same "empty space" now than we did at the origin of the universe? That still doesn't answer why Dawkins talks about this "Space" as though it was the cause for matter when we still have the same exact "space" today.

Read Krauss' book if you're actually interested in his model.

Further, if it IS the case that all that existed before was "space" and then things were brought into existence like matter, then I would think logically, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" would be an valid explanation of things. Why isn't it?

It's a logically consistent explanation. I'm okay with that.

It's not at all "in spite" of their claim, but based on "what" those claims actually are. If it's impossible to determine what people believe based on the claims they make about things, then I'm not sure we could ever know what other people believe about things at all.

What are you talking about? Dawkins claimed that something mysterious caused the universe. Why is it impossible to determine that he believes something mysterious caused the universe?

If I'm talking about scientific theory that I haven't researched, then naturally, my only choice is to go based on what people have said about this theory.

No, actually, the best choice is to go research that scientific theory if you insist on talking about it. You have a lot more options than talking about things you know nothing about. This is crazy.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

There is no distinction, it's the same stuff.

If it is the same stuff, then why aren't things popping into existence all the time?

No, there's a universe here now, it isn't empty anymore.

I think this is a pretty trivial explanation of what I am trying to get at. What I am trying to get at is not whether or not there is "stuff" now, but why there isn't "more stuff" cause by this same empty space that we see today?

Read Krauss' book if you're actually interested in his model.

If you link me an article on the subject, I will try and read it given it is for a popular audience.

It's a logically consistent explanation. I'm okay with that.

So the next question would be if it is a logically consistent explanation [of the origin of the universe] why don't you believe in it? Or Dawkins or Krauss for that matter?

What are you talking about? Dawkins claimed that something mysterious caused the universe. Why is it impossible to determine that he believes something mysterious caused the universe?

Yes, he did. He also described it as "nothing". If it's actually "something" "mysterious" on what caused the origin of the universe, then he should probably at least entertain the idea that it could be God. But he doesn't. Why do you think that is? I'd say he doesn't consider it because he doesn't like the implications of what that would actually mean about things, such as him being held accountable to God.

No, actually, the best choice is to go research that scientific theory if you insist on talking about it. You have a lot more options than talking about things you know nothing about. This is crazy.

Like I said, if you can share an article on this, I'd be happy to read it, but I don't actually want to give Krauss any money by buying his book.

 

[Moral Orel]

So the next question would be if it is a logically consistent explanation [of the origin of the universe] why don't you believe in it? Or Dawkins or Krauss for that matter?

Just because something is logically consistent doesn't mean it's true. It's logically consistent that I was born in China, that doesn't make it true. Things need to be evidenced for me to believe them.

Yes, he did.

Good, then you can retract your false claim about Dawkins to preserve a little bit of intellectual honesty.

I'd say he doesn't consider it because he doesn't like the implications of what that would actually mean about things, such as him being held accountable to God.

People generally don't like it when you just make stuff about them. Food for thought.

This is another canard Christians like to throw around that is also bologna. Who wouldn't be ecstatic to believe that they get an infinite amount of pleasure for an infinitesimal amount of effort? Folks who don't believe in Christianity do so because the evidence for it is bad. Folks who do believe in Christianity do so because they're bad at evaluating evidence.

Like I said, if you can share an article on this, I'd be happy to read it, but I don't actually want to give Krauss any money by buying his book.

Nah, I don't care what you think about the theories themselves. It's enough for me that you understand you were wrong to think atheists believe the universe came from nothing.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Nah, I don't care what you think about the theories themselves. It's enough for me that you understand you were wrong to think atheists believe the universe came from nothing.

In other words, you don't actually care about telling people what is True, you just care about proving people wrong. I will remember that for future engagements.

 

[Moral Orel]

In other words, you don't actually care about telling people what is True, you just care about proving people wrong. I will remember that for future engagements.

Depends on the topic and depends on the person. In my thread we had a discussion where I demonstrated to you that you are ignoring the suffering of others when you treat yourself. That's me telling you what is true.

In another thread I demonstrated that the implications of the "Free Will Defense" to the "Problem of Evil" is that God doesn't have free will. That's me telling you what is true.

In this thread I demonstrated that you were making false accusations about myself and other atheists. So sure, I was proving you wrong in this thread. Is that a bad thing? Are you afraid of having your beliefs challenged that you don't want to hear from folks who have good reason to disbelieve your claims?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Depends on the topic and depends on the person. In my thread we had a discussion where I demonstrated to you that you are ignoring the suffering of others when you treat yourself. That's me telling you what is true.

In another thread I demonstrated that the implications of the "Free Will Defense" to the "Problem of Evil" is that God doesn't have free will. That's me telling you what is true.

In this thread I demonstrated that you were making false accusations about myself and other atheists. So sure, I was proving you wrong in this thread. Is that a bad thing? Are you afraid of having your beliefs challenged that you don't want to hear from folks who have good reason to disbelieve your claims?

Well, I really don't have any reason to think you are actually telling the Truth in those other threads because you don't seem to care about that here.

If it's entirely dependent on the situation on when you care about telling the Truth or not, then no one actually knows when you are telling the Truth and when you are lying.

I created a thread earlier, which I asked to be deleted, which it was, about the difference between atheists and Christians and it was basically exactly what you are demonstrating here. The point was that there's actually no reason why an atheist shouldn't lie out of self-interest and there IS reason for why a Christian shouldn't lie out of self-interest. The reason for the Christian not to lie was that they are going to be held accountable to God for "every careless word" that they speak. This should motivate Christians to tell the Truth. And when a Christian tells the Truth at a personal cost to them, then they actually are going to receive rewards in heaven for that cost to them. But to an atheist, who has no reason not to lie, then they are going to do just that because this life is all that they are living for.

 

[Moral Orel]

If it's entirely dependent on the situation on when you care about telling the Truth or not, then no one actually knows when you are telling the Truth and when you are lying.

Oh it's on like Donkey Kong now, bro! See, this is an example of being disingenuous. You asked me about "telling people what is true" and now you've turned it into "telling the truth". Those are different, and you know that they're different, but you're being dishonest to question my honesty. You're a bad dude aren't you?

You make multiple false claims about atheists in general. You make false claims about specifically Richard Dawkins. Now you make false claims about me. And you retract nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence that all your claims are false. That's what dishonesty looks like. You lost this fight, just like you lost the others, so you have to resort to false accusations about the folks you're arguing with. Sad, bro, real sad.

I'm not going to waste the time addressing your personal issues in the future. You know what they are, though I'm sure you don't care. I'll continue to point out your errors as the mood strikes me though. This'll be fun.

I created a thread earlier, which I asked to be deleted, which it was, about the difference between atheists and Christians and it was basically exactly what you are demonstrating here. The point was that there's actually no reason why an atheist shouldn't lie out of self-interest and there IS reason for why a Christian shouldn't lie out of self-interest. The reason for the Christian not to lie was that they are going to be held accountable to God for "every careless word" that they speak. This should motivate Christians to tell the Truth. And when a Christian tells the Truth at a personal cost to them, then they actually are going to receive rewards in heaven for that cost to them. But to an atheist, who has no reason not to lie, then they are going to do just that because this life is all that they are living for.

Let's start here. There are consequences to our actions other than an afterlife. If I break a contract, I have to pay a penalty. No God required, and yet, you say that atheists have no reason not to lie out of self interest. Boom, wrong.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Oh it's on like Donkey Kong now, bro! See, this is an example of being disingenuous. You asked me about "telling people what is true" and now you've turned it into "telling the truth". Those are different, and you know that they're different, but you're being dishonest to question my honesty. You're a bad dude aren't you?

I'm afraid you have me terribly mistaken. If the premise is True that you don't care about telling people what is True, then it follows that there is reason not to believe you in other things you say. If I ask you to provide an article for me to read, and you tell me, quite plainly, that you would rather just prove I am wrong, then it makes sense that your priority is on proving people wrong rather than telling people the Truth. And if your priority is on proving people wrong, then I see little reason why you wouldn't lie to do this, because at some point, you are going to have to choose whether you would rather prove someone wrong over telling the Truth.

You make multiple false claims about atheists in general. You make false claims about specifically Richard Dawkins. Now you make false claims about me. And you retract nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence that all your claims are false. That's what dishonesty looks like. You lost this fight, just like you lost the others, so you have to resort to false accusations about the folks you're arguing with. Sad, bro, real sad.

While I may have misspoken on some things, it should be clear what my point actually is, which is that Dawkins has said that nothing isn't actually nothing. Now, he might say nothing isn't actually nothing in a technical sense, but he still claims it is something "mysterious" to which I don't know that anyone can actually explain what that is or how it works. That's all my point really is. So when I ask you to share an article about this to me, so that I can understand the perspective better, and you tell me you would rather just be content proving me wrong, I am not really sure what kind of response you are expecting.

I'm not going to waste the time addressing your personal issues in the future. You know what they are, though I'm sure you don't care. I'll continue to point out your errors as the mood strikes me though. This'll be fun.

In the case that I am proven wrong, I will try and admit it. But as it stands, it seems that you take issue with what I have said atheists believe, which I think to myself that I have not actually been unfair in representing the atheists view. So, while I can ask you to tell me what exactly I got "wrong" about the atheist's perspective, if you don't provide me with that information, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Let's start here. There are consequences to our actions other than an afterlife. If I break a contract, I have to pay a penalty. No God required, and yet, you say that atheists have no reason not to lie out of self interest. Boom, wrong.

I'm not sure how this disproves my point because in the thread I was talking about, the atheist could circumvented the issue entirely and everyone would be none the wiser. So it's in the case where it is "hard to tell" whether someone lied and the atheist lies out of personal self-interest that I am talking about.

 

[Pommer]

I am talking about THE SPACE that was there before the universe existed and you have IGNORED this distinction.

There was no “space” before the universe existed.
There was not a humongous void into which “creation” was placed, but the expansion of the universe that “created” the space in between that matter and energy of the universe.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm afraid you have me terribly mistaken. If the premise is True that you don't care about telling people what is True, then it follows that there is reason not to believe you in other things you say. If I ask you to provide an article for me to read, and you tell me, quite plainly, that you would rather just prove I am wrong, then it makes sense that your priority is on proving people wrong rather than telling people the Truth. And if your priority is on proving people wrong, then I see little reason why you wouldn't lie to do this, because at some point, you are going to have to choose whether you would rather prove someone wrong over telling the Truth.

I haven't told you how tall I am either because it doesn't interest me to have a conversation about my height. See how you twist me not looking up information for you into me lying? You're deceitful.

I don't need to lie to prove your claims are wrong. You presented the evidence yourself.

While I may have misspoken on some things, it should be clear what my point actually is, which is that Dawkins has said that nothing isn't actually nothing. Now, he might say nothing isn't actually nothing in a technical sense, but he still claims it is something "mysterious" to which I don't know that anyone can actually explain what that is or how it works. That's all my point really is. So when I ask you to share an article about this to me, so that I can understand the perspective better, and you tell me you would rather just be content proving me wrong, I am not really sure what kind of response you are expecting.

Your claim was that atheists believe the universe came from nothing, so you posted a video showing an atheist claiming the universe came from something. I proved you wrong about that, and you refuse to admit your statements were false. Further, what little information I did explain to you was all met with you immediately trying to debunk it. I'm not interested in that conversation. If you are, start a thread in the science section and folks there will be happy to educate you. If you were actually interested in learning what that position is, you know exactly how to do that.

In the case that I am proven wrong, I will try and admit it. But as it stands, it seems that you take issue with what I have said atheists believe, which I think to myself that I have not actually been unfair in representing the atheists view. So, while I can ask you to tell me what exactly I got "wrong" about the atheist's perspective, if you don't provide me with that information, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

You claimed that atheists believe the universe came from nothing, you presented as evidence an atheist flat out saying that the universe came from something. How is your claim a fair assessment? It isn't, and you know it isn't. I did share what exactly you got wrong. You claimed atheists believed the universe came from nothing, I showed that they believe the universe came from something. How is that not sufficient to disprove your inane claim?

I'm not sure how this disproves my point because in the thread I was talking about, the atheist could circumvented the issue entirely and everyone would be none the wiser. So it's in the case where it is "hard to tell" whether someone lied and the atheist lies out of personal self-interest that I am talking about.

So you're only talking about the times when an atheist can be sure he won't be caught. Well, that's never, so your objection is moot.

There are lots of purely selfish reasons to be truthful, you don't need a god for that. You say there's "no reason", that's false. If I get caught lying, people stop believing me, and I lose influence over them. I want to hold influence over others, for purely selfish reasons, so lying is not in my self interest.

 

[Moral Orel]

There was no “space” before the universe existed.
There was not a humongous void into which “creation” was placed, but the expansion of the universe that “created” the space in between that matter and energy of the universe.

Depends on the model you're talking about. In the singularity, space was there, it was just scrunched up into an infinitely small point. In multiverse theory space is probably infinitely wide and universes pop up inside it. In either case, space isn't created, it's stretched.

 

[Pommer]

Well, I really don't have any reason to think you are actually telling the Truth in those other threads because you don't seem to care about that here.

If it's entirely dependent on the situation on when you care about telling the Truth or not, then no one actually knows when you are telling the Truth and when you are lying.

I created a thread earlier, which I asked to be deleted, which it was, about the difference between atheists and Christians and it was basically exactly what you are demonstrating here. The point was that there's actually no reason why an atheist shouldn't lie out of self-interest and there IS reason for why a Christian shouldn't lie out of self-interest. The reason for the Christian not to lie was that they are going to be held accountable to God for "every careless word" that they speak. This should motivate Christians to tell the Truth. And when a Christian tells the Truth at a personal cost to them, then they actually are going to receive rewards in heaven for that cost to them. But to an atheist, who has no reason not to lie, then they are going to do just that because this life is all that they are living for.

But. You. Get. HEAVEN for all ETERNITY.
Your “mansion” might be on a hill?

 

[Pommer]

In multiverse theory space is probably infinitely wide and universes pop up inside it. In either case, space isn't created, it's stretched.

My limited understanding of the multiverse theory is that it accounts for time without there needing to be “time”, like a frame from an 11-dimension movie film (or brane?).

 

[Pommer]

Depends on the model you're talking about. In the singularity, space was there, it was just scrunched up into an infinitely small point. In multiverse theory space is probably infinitely wide and universes pop up inside it. In either case, space isn't created, it's stretched.

Well, yes, at the very edge of the universe where there is no radiation nor particles there is no “place” for radiation or particles to inhabit, until they get “there”, ever expanding.

 

[Moral Orel]

My limited understanding of the multiverse theory is that it accounts for time without there needing to be “time”, like a frame from an 11-dimension movie film (or brane?).

There are a lot of very specific adaptations of the general idea of a multiverse. Some conceive of universes being connected by some kind of membrane, yes. But some are more like the bubbles inside of a fizzy soda. Either way, there's some kind of eternal stuff that's changing from one form to another.

Well, yes, at the very edge of the universe where there is no radiation nor particles there is no “place” for radiation or particles to inhabit, until they get “there”, ever expanding.

Personally, the idea of an edge seems like nonsense to me. Space is expanding in directions that only exist within itself? My personal theory is that we haven't yet stumbled on an accurate description of the universe's origins, and stumble upon it we will. But if it happens in my lifetime, it too will probably sound like nonsense to me.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I haven't told you how tall I am either because it doesn't interest me to have a conversation about my height. See how you twist me not looking up information for you into me lying? You're deceitful.

I don't need to lie to prove your claims are wrong. You presented the evidence yourself.

Your height isn't relevant to anything discussed do far. The question is whether I am being truthful to how I personally see things and I think I am. And I am saying you would rather prove me wrong than tell the truth. Am I wrong about that? Where is my faulty logic in this?

Your claim was that atheists believe the universe came from nothing, so you posted a video showing an atheist claiming the universe came from something. I proved you wrong about that, and you refuse to admit your statements were false. Further, what little information I did explain to you was all met with you immediately trying to debunk it. I'm not interested in that conversation. If you are, start a thread in the science section and folks there will be happy to educate you. If you were actually interested in learning what that position is, you know exactly how to do that.

I also posted a video of Dawkins saying "Its literally nothing" in the same video that refers to Krauss which is the same video you quoted me from. So if Dawkins thinks nothing is not nothing, then he sure is not explaining himself well because one of these videos is where I got the idea Dawkins thinks the universe came from nothing. But if Dawkins is just using the term nothing to mean something mysterious, then he should just say something mysterious caused the origin of the universe and not use the term nothing at all.

You claimed that atheists believe the universe came from nothing, you presented as evidence an atheist flat out saying that the universe came from something. How is your claim a fair assessment? It isn't, and you know it isn't. I did share what exactly you got wrong. You claimed atheists believed the universe came from nothing, I showed that they believe the universe came from something. How is that not sufficient to disprove your inane claim?

See above. Also, my being generous with you now saying maybe nothing doesn't mean nothing seems to be lost on you. I could very well put my good will towards poorly worded claims aside and just say how utterly ridiculous and contradictory Dawkins has been regarding this, but instead I'm actually trying to understand the position better.

So you're only talking about the times when an atheist can be sure he won't be caught. Well, that's never, so your objection is moot.

I would not say it is never from an atheists PoV. For example, if the atheist knows his explanation is reasonable, but they don't actually believe it, then they can lie without thinking they will get caught.

There are lots of purely selfish reasons to be truthful, you don't need a god for that. You say there's "no reason", that's false. If I get caught lying, people stop believing me, and I lose influence over them. I want to hold influence over others, for purely selfish reasons, so lying is not in my self interest.

What I mean when I say "no reason" I am talking about this morally speaking, not pragmatically speaking. Yes, there are reasons not to lie, but there are reasons you should lie as well. So the point I am trying to make is that morally, an atheist doesn't have reasons not to lie out of self-interest if they think the won't get caught for lying.