- Oct 11, 2020
- 4,742
- 1,776
- 39
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And even if Dawkins said something like that, atheism has no popes.
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.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.
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.And even if Dawkins said something like that, atheism has no popes.
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.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.
Boom! Nailed it! See, he referenced Krauss.@Moral Orel, this was the next video in the queue.
Boom! Nailed it! See, he referenced Krauss.
Boom! Nailed it! See, he referenced Krauss.
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.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.
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.Okay??? I'm not really sure what "empty space" is. Is it a "space" with "nothing" in it?
No, you don't understand what it is. Just because you don't know doesn't mean that no one knows anything about it.As far as I can see, this "empty space" isn't anything anyone actually understands what it is.
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.Not sure how this disproves God exists at all.
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.
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 never said I was making any sort of attempt to. You made a claim about what atheists believe and you were wrong. Dead wrong.
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.Why shouldn't we talk about this in this thread?
No you're not. Not at all. Dawkins never said anything resembling what you're accusing him of. Again.I'm basically just repeating what Dawkins said about it.
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.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.
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.
No you're not. Not at all. Dawkins never said anything resembling what you're accusing him of. Again.
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.
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 asked you to give an article for me to read earlier. So I think you are mistaken.
Please do. Tell me the time stamp of your heavily edited video where Dawkins says, "Space is something that no one understands"I can go back and look at the direct quotes in the video if you want.
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".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.
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".
What is it that you think I am intentionally misrepresenting?Did you know you are being disingenuous? Because you are.
What is it that you think I am intentionally misrepresenting?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?