Atheist question

[Kenny]

I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago.

Here is where you are wrong. I provided 2 links that shows the Big Bang theory does NOT claim energy/matter ever came into being. The Theory starts with energy and matter already in place in the form of the singularity. How or if the singularity ever came into being will be a different theory all together; one that has not been established yet.

That is not what your links say.
The reason I didn't respond to your links and quotes is I didn't disagree with either the links you posted or the quotes you posted and I could find nothing in your links that conflicts with my assertion
"I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."

Some quotes from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]

This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.

English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past."[45]

Your own link uses the following descriptions of the Big Bang
an original single point for an expanding universe
colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe
where and when the fabric of space and time came into existence
and all the matter in the universe was created (Highlighted by myself)
and where the laws of physics as we understand them work

I said the Big Bang theory does not claim matter and energy actually came into being; I assumed coming into being means created.
Of all the points listed above, the only thing I can see that refutes what I said was “all the matter in the universe was created” which you seem to have gotten from the last paragraph

English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.”[45]

The very next paragraph stated that Fred Hoyle didn’t even believe in the Big Bang theory, he favored the “Steady State theory" and only said that as a pejorative. IOW he wasn’t serious when he said that.

So that portion of your argument failed; the rest of it does not refute anything I’ve said.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
Yes. though I am 100% convinced God is not real, because I cannot provide empirical evidence to prove this I am not in a position to make the claim

Now I've heard it all!

In one single post, Kenny claims without any doubt, that God doesn't exist, AND he denies he's making the claim!

I never said that. I said though I am 100% certain, I can’t provide proof so I don’t make the claim.

Edit:
And also notice how intellectually dishonest he is. Any honest person who doesn't believe God exists, would never claim with 100% certainty, that God doesn't exist. Since Kenny admits there's no way to disprove God exists, there's no way he should be 100% certain that He doesn't exist.

I don’t need to provide proof to everybody else’s satisfaction in order for me to be 100% certain.

[DBowling]

I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago.

Here is where you are wrong. I provided 2 links that shows the Big Bang theory does NOT claim energy/matter ever came into being. The Theory starts with energy and matter already in place in the form of the singularity. How or if the singularity ever came into being will be a different theory all together; one that has not been established yet.

That is not what your links say.
The reason I didn't respond to your links and quotes is I didn't disagree with either the links you posted or the quotes you posted and I could find nothing in your links that conflicts with my assertion
"I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."

Some quotes from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]

This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.

English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past."[45]

Your own link uses the following descriptions of the Big Bang
an original single point for an expanding universe
colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe
where and when the fabric of space and time came into existence
and all the matter in the universe was created (Highlighted by myself)
and where the laws of physics as we understand them work

I said the Big Bang theory does not claim matter and energy actually came into being; I assumed coming into being means created.
Of all the points listed above, the only thing I can see that refutes what I said was “all the matter in the universe was created” which you seem to have gotten from the last paragraph

Your claim is also refuted by the quote regarding Lemaître in 1931
"where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence"

That wording from your link is very close to my statement
"the matter/energy of our universe came into being"

English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.”[45]

The very next paragraph stated that Fred Hoyle didn’t even believe in the Big Bang theory, he favored the “Steady State theory" and only said that as a pejorative. IOW he wasn’t serious when he said that.

There you go again...
Did you even bother to read the very next sentence?

Again from your source material

It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative,[46] but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models.[47][48][49]

Back to the point at hand...
I made the following assertion
"I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."
You posted this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
And asserted that I was wrong.

Contrary to your assertion, there is nothing in your link that demonstrates that my statement was wrong. And to make matters even worse for you, I posted four quotes from your link that are actually consistent with my assertion.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
Yes. though I am 100% convinced God is not real, because I cannot provide empirical evidence to prove this I am not in a position to make the claim

RickD wrote: ↑Now I've heard it all!

In one single post, Kenny claims without any doubt, that God doesn't exist, AND he denies he's making the claim!

Kenny wrote:
I never said that. I said though I am 100% certain, I can’t provide proof so I don’t make the claim.

Your claim being made:

though I am 100% convinced God is not real

Your denial that you even made the claim, in the same sentence as the claim:

because I cannot provide empirical evidence to prove this I am not in a position to make the claim

Nice, Kenny. Very nice!

[Kenny]

I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago.

Here is where you are wrong. I provided 2 links that shows the Big Bang theory does NOT claim energy/matter ever came into being. The Theory starts with energy and matter already in place in the form of the singularity. How or if the singularity ever came into being will be a different theory all together; one that has not been established yet.

That is not what your links say.
The reason I didn't respond to your links and quotes is I didn't disagree with either the links you posted or the quotes you posted and I could find nothing in your links that conflicts with my assertion
"I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."

Some quotes from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]

This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.

English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past."[45]

Your own link uses the following descriptions of the Big Bang
an original single point for an expanding universe
colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe
where and when the fabric of space and time came into existence
and all the matter in the universe was created (Highlighted by myself)
and where the laws of physics as we understand them work

I said the Big Bang theory does not claim matter and energy actually came into being; I assumed coming into being means created.
Of all the points listed above, the only thing I can see that refutes what I said was “all the matter in the universe was created” which you seem to have gotten from the last paragraph

Your claim is also refuted by the quote regarding Lemaître in 1931
"where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence"

No; I said nothing about time and space, so this does not refute anything I said.

That wording from your link is very close to my statement
"the matter/energy of our universe came into being"

As Sigmund Freud once said; “Close but no Cigar!” it’s still different

English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.”[45]

The very next paragraph stated that Fred Hoyle didn’t even believe in the Big Bang theory, he favored the “Steady State theory" and only said that as a pejorative. IOW he wasn’t serious when he said that.

There you go again...
Did you even bother to read the very next sentence?

Again from your source material

It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative,[46] but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models.[47][48][49]

It doesn’t matter whether he was saying it as a pejorative, or simply hyperbolizing to make a point; your claim that matter actually came into being is not supported by the Big Bang theory.

Back to the point at hand...
I made the following assertion
"I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."
You posted this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
And asserted that I was wrong.

Contrary to your assertion, there is nothing in your link that demonstrates that my statement was wrong.

There is nothing in the link that says your statement was right either! So you will need to come up with something else to make your point.

And to make matters even worse for you, I posted four quotes from your link that are actually consistent with my assertion.

Your assertions were dispelled shortly after you made them.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
Yes. though I am 100% convinced God is not real, because I cannot provide empirical evidence to prove this I am not in a position to make the claim

RickD wrote: ↑Now I've heard it all!

In one single post, Kenny claims without any doubt, that God doesn't exist, AND he denies he's making the claim!

Kenny wrote:
I never said that. I said though I am 100% certain, I can’t provide proof so I don’t make the claim.

Your claim being made:

though I am 100% convinced God is not real

Your denial that you even made the claim, in the same sentence as the claim:

because I cannot provide empirical evidence to prove this I am not in a position to make the claim

Nice, Kenny. Very nice!

Makes perfect sense to me! I am 100% convinced God is not real/does not exist, but because I can only prove this to myself not everybody else, I don’t go around telling other people (making claims) about it. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[abelcainsbrother]

Kenny wrote:
Yes. though I am 100% convinced God is not real, because I cannot provide empirical evidence to prove this I am not in a position to make the claim

Now I've heard it all!

In one single post, Kenny claims without any doubt, that God doesn't exist, AND he denies he's making the claim!



Edit:
And also notice how intellectually dishonest he is. Any honest person who doesn't believe God exists, would never claim with 100% certainty, that God doesn't exist. Since Kenny admits there's no way to disprove God exists, there's no way he should be 100% certain that He doesn't exist.

This is what I was getting at atheists have no evidence muchless proof atheism is true,yet they choose to live out there life as if a God does not exist and that they are not accountable to a God.This is faith as actions speak louder than words do and people who believe in God live out there life as if God is real and they are accountable to God.Yet atheists will tell you they don't have to have any evidence.This is exactly what Kenny is getting at,he has no proof God does not exist yet still choose to accept atheism anyway and lives out his life as an atheist.Kenny thinks that as long as he keeps it to himself he lives as an atheist he does not have to have any evidence or proof he is correct in living that way.

Which gets back to atheists not taking evidence seriously and how we need to devote our time to help atheist realize the importance of evidence in determining the truth. This is a one-sided debate as always with atheists. We should not be having one-sided debates where only one side has evidence and is willing to share it while the other one has no evidence but just talking points to reject,deny and explain away any evidence presented and thinks they do not have to have any evidence because of no claims being made.It is casting pearls before swine.

You know I have debated people of other faiths and when I did it,we would discuss evidence that each side had,yet after years of debating atheists I started to realize atheists have no evidence to even counter or discuss in order to see who has the most convincing evidence. I mean I've debated muslims and they provide what they think is evidence and I did for Christianity,yet when I debated atheists I realized they have no evidence to even discuss.So that it is a one-sided debate. What needs to happen is we need to challenge atheists just like we would anybody else from another faith to provide evidence we can discuss to see who has the most convincing evidence.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
Yes. though I am 100% convinced God is not real, because I cannot provide empirical evidence to prove this I am not in a position to make the claim

RickD wrote: ↑Now I've heard it all!

In one single post, Kenny claims without any doubt, that God doesn't exist, AND he denies he's making the claim!

Kenny wrote:
I never said that. I said though I am 100% certain, I can’t provide proof so I don’t make the claim.

Your claim being made:

though I am 100% convinced God is not real

Your denial that you even made the claim, in the same sentence as the claim:

because I cannot provide empirical evidence to prove this I am not in a position to make the claim

Nice, Kenny. Very nice!

Makes perfect sense to me! I am 100% convinced God is not real/does not exist, but because I can only prove this to myself not everybody else, I don’t go around telling other people (making claims) about it. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Kenny,

You're only fooling yourself, with your nonsense and intellectual dishonesty.

How do you reconcile the part of your quote that I underlined, with what you said earlier, here:

The Christian God is defined in a way that makes it literally impossible to prove he doesn’t exist thus I am unable to make such a claim.

You said it's "literally impossible to prove he(God) doesn't exist", yet somehow you have proven to yourself, with 100% certainty, that God doesn't exist.

Do you ever stop and consider the nonsense that you write?

[Kenny]

How do you reconcile the part of your quote that I underlined, with what you said earlier, here:

I can't prove to your satisfaction; or others believers like you, but there is enough evidence (from what is in the Bible) to convince me.

The Christian God is defined in a way that makes it literally impossible to prove he doesn’t exist thus I am unable to make such a claim.

You said it's "literally impossible to prove he(God) doesn't exist", yet somehow you have proven to yourself, with 100% certainty, that God doesn't exist.

It is not possible to prove to everyone God doesn't exist, but it is possible to prove to my satisfaction.

[DBowling]

I could find nothing in your links that conflicts with my assertion
"I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."

Some quotes from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[55]

This primordial singularity is itself sometimes called "the Big Bang",[25] but the term can also refer to a more generic early hot, dense phase[26][notes 1] of the universe. In either case, "the Big Bang" as an event is also colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them (specifically general relativity and the standard model of particle physics) work.

English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past."[45]

Your claim is also refuted by the quote regarding Lemaître in 1931
"where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence"

No; I said nothing about time and space, so this does not refute anything I said.

That wording from your link is very close to my statement
"the matter/energy of our universe came into being"

As Sigmund Freud once said; “Close but no Cigar!” it’s still different

Are you claiming that "the fabric of time and space" does not include "the matter and energy in our universe"?

English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.”[45]

The very next paragraph stated that Fred Hoyle didn’t even believe in the Big Bang theory, he favored the “Steady State theory" and only said that as a pejorative. IOW he wasn’t serious when he said that.

There you go again...
Did you even bother to read the very next sentence?

Again from your source material

It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative,[46] but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models.[47][48][49]

It doesn’t matter whether he was saying it as a pejorative, or simply hyperbolizing to make a point; your claim that matter actually came into being is not supported by the Big Bang theory.

So you keep saying...
But it is supported by the positions of both Lemaître and Hoyle in your source material.
And based on the accuracy of your assertions in our dialogue so far, I am inclined to give more weight to the positions of Lemaître and Hoyle than your inaccurate assertions.

When you appeal to source material, it would help your cause if your source material actually supported your claims.

Back to the point at hand...
I made the following assertion
"I claim that science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."
You posted this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
And asserted that I was wrong.

Contrary to your assertion, there is nothing in your link that demonstrates that my statement was wrong.

There is nothing in the link that says your statement was right either! So you will need to come up with something else to make your point.

And to make matters even worse for you, I posted four quotes from your link that are actually consistent with my assertion.

Your assertions were dispelled shortly after you made them.

No... you just made fact free claims about my assertions, which are not supported by any data from your source material.

And your own link uses the following descriptions of the Big Bang
an original single point for an expanding universe
colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe
where and when the fabric of space and time came into existence
and all the matter in the universe was created
and where the laws of physics as we understand them work

So far you have failed to provide one shed of evidence that contradicts my claim that
"science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."

[PaulSacramento]

If scientific evidence pointed to an intelligent Creator (ie God), why is it that so many of the people who actually studied science are atheists?

That is a good question, have you asked them?

Yeah; he said there is no scientific evidence for a creator God; thus refuting pretty much everything our friend said.

Now just ask him to define "god".

[Philip]

DB: No... you just made fact free claims about my assertions, which are not supported by any data from your source material.

And your own link uses the following descriptions of the Big Bang
an original single point for an expanding universe
colloquially referred to as the "birth" of our universe
where and when the fabric of space and time came into existence
and all the matter in the universe was created
and where the laws of physics as we understand them work

So far you have failed to provide one shed of evidence that contradicts my claim that
"science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."

Ken simply made up his mind a long time ago that he'll allow no level of evidence to be perceived as evidences of a Creator God, no matter how astounding the complexity and impossibility of such extraordinary things of first A) creating and designing themselves and their functionalities and B) then their immediate beginning (at the start of the Big Bang) to stunningly self-assembling, intra-coordinating themselves into a universe that C) is individually and collectively obeying complex laws of / with great precision. And common sense tells us this is absolutely impossible, not to mention we have zero evidences of such possibilities of such things happening even in simple ways. Blind, non-thinking things simply have NO abilities to do what we, the most intelligent creatures known to exist, can scarcely understand the basics of. Again, one has to delude themselves to the mind-bending belief that blind, non-intelligent things can do what a non-created / Creator-caused universe would otherwise have to be capable of doing.

I mean, a rational atheist should at least acknowledge the obvious - that there HAD to be a grand Intelligence behind these many incredibly complex things - even if one doesn't believe this Intelligence is the God of the Bible or worthy of worship. But, to me, it just seems intellectually dishonest to assert the mathematical impossibility that non-living, non-thinking things can do what occurred at the Big Bang's beginning, and is displayed across the countless great complex marvels and systems of our planet and universe. It simply takes immense faith to believe in what there is otherwise no evidence to be possible of being produced by blind, non-thinking things. It's why atheism takes the most faith of all belief systems!

Further, notice the immense hostility and anger that many (but not all) atheists and agnostics have over Christians' belief and faith - WHY???!!! Why despise people just because they believe differently than you - especially as they have hope, love and comfort, and do much good that is driven by their faith in God / Christ?

[Kenny]

It doesn’t matter whether he was saying it as a pejorative, or simply hyperbolizing to make a point; your claim that matter actually came into being is not supported by the Big Bang theory.

So you keep saying...
But it is supported by the positions of both Lemaître and Hoyle in your source material.
And based on the accuracy of your assertions in our dialogue so far, I am inclined to give more weight to the positions of Lemaître and Hoyle than your inaccurate assertions.

When you appeal to source material, it would help your cause if your source material actually supported your claims.

So you insist on getting your information about the Big Bang from someone who doesn't even believe the Big Bang ever happened? Is this the method to your madness? Because if it is it definitely explains a lot!

So far you have failed to provide one shed of evidence that contradicts my claim that
"science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."

Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.

Kenny,

You do realize that applies to closed systems, don't you?

[DBowling]

It doesn’t matter whether he was saying it as a pejorative, or simply hyperbolizing to make a point; your claim that matter actually came into being is not supported by the Big Bang theory.

So you keep saying...
But it is supported by the positions of both Lemaître and Hoyle in your source material.
And based on the accuracy of your assertions in our dialogue so far, I am inclined to give more weight to the positions of Lemaître and Hoyle than your inaccurate assertions.

When you appeal to source material, it would help your cause if your source material actually supported your claims.

So you insist on getting your information about the Big Bang from someone who doesn't even believe the Big Bang ever happened? Is this the method to your madness? Because if it is it definitely explains a lot!

My quotes came from your source material...
So if your source material is that inaccurate, then as you say...
"It definitely explains a lot."

And if you think that Lemaître didn't even believe in the Big Bang
well...
That explains a lot too!

So far you have failed to provide one shed of evidence that contradicts my claim that
"science tells us that (not how) the matter/energy of our universe came into being around 14 billion years ago."

Your claim contradicts the law of Conservation of Mass which says matter can neither be either created nor destroyed, only changes form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

Bingo!!!
You may actually be catching on.

If the first law of thermodynamics says that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
And since the Big Bang theory says that matter, energy, space, and time "came into existence"

Then what does that say about the agent that caused matter, energy, space, and time to "come into existence"?

Hint... the evidence from the first law of thermodynamics and the Big Bang Theory together indicates that the causal agent for matter, energy, space, and time coming into existence, by definition, operates outside the constraints of the natural laws of science, space, and time.