Brilliant use of scientific facts destroys reasoning for atheism!

[Philip]

In this brilliant 12 minutes, Dr. Frank Turek exposes how absurd atheism is - and the belief that the universe and life itself didn't require a Creator! As Turek observes - "I don't have that kind of FAITH!" Because faced with the powerful scientific evidences and mind-boggling, exponentially razor-thin margins required for our universe to even exist, much less for it to support life, to believe such is possible CANNOT reasonably be deduced from the actual EVIDENCES. Meaning, non-belief in a Creator is based ONLY upon - FAITH - but it's certainly not an EVIDENCE-based faith! People that want to believe whatever it is they desire - well, they'll not let inconvenient things like established facts deter them!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG_iGtjB7gk

God often only reveals Himself to people who sincerely WANT to know the truth behind our existence (and WHATEVER that actually is) - or at least those who have open hearts and minds to what He wants to show them. Which is why God doesn't play "peek-a-boo" from behind the clouds! Because God shows us powerful evidences effective upon sincere truth seekers - and not to people who insist God reveal Himself only on THEIR terms. They often don't know the truth because THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW IT - or don't like WHO it leads to (CHRIST!).

[Kenny]

I looked at the video and nowhere does he provide any scientific facts that destroys reasoning for atheism. He does make a lot of mistakes concerning science like

*He makes the mistake claiming the Big bang theory is about the origin of the Universe; it is not. The Big bang theory is how the Universe went from singularity to what it is now.
*He keeps referring to the Big Bang as if it were an explosion; it was not, it was an expansion.
*He equates our Sun with the existence of the Universe; saying if the Universe were eternal, our Sun would have burned out along time ago, as if our Sun is required for the Universe to exist. the reality is; our Sun is one star among countless others; the Universe does not need our Sun in order to exist.

But still; no scientific facts presented like the title suggests.

[Philip]

Ken: I looked at the video and nowhere does he provide any scientific facts that destroys reasoning for atheism.

Of course he gave scientific facts - and what he describes that SCIENCE confirms makes zero sense that such extraordinary things could have occurred without an intelligent cause. You just don't like his conclusion.

Ken: He makes the mistake claiming the Big bang theory is about the origin of the Universe; it is not. The Big bang theory is how the Universe went from singularity to what it is now.

Yes, Singularity preceded he Big Bang, but there was NO universe before the Big Bang - no time, space or matter existed. Turek has redundantly studied the widespread scientific analysis and thinking upon what science thinks about what occurred - and AGREES with it. He just profoundly disagrees that it makes any logical sense that this happened without an Intelligent Controller / Designer of great power, intelligence, and purpose.

Ken: He keeps referring to the Big Bang as if it were an explosion; it was not, it was an expansion.

READ Ken - RESEARCH what Turek actually believes - and you'll find that Turek well knows the Big Bang was a very CONTROLLED EXPANSION - and not a chaotic explosion (Which we would otherwise expect from a Godless naturalism. Yes, Turek could have been more careful to use a better term ("expansion") to his point of what IMMEDIATELY occurred as the BB began. Which most certainly was NOT chaos - in fact, the polar opposite of chaos occurred. This is just nonsense you're asserting.

Ken, you've spent many years coming onto this forum arguing against the existence of God and Christian beliefs. I have no idea why this is so important to you. Because, if your beliefs are correct, then ultimately it doesn't matter whatsoever what you, I or anyone else believes, as we'd all just die and know nothing further anyway. But if Christian beliefs are correct, what one believes and follows is EXTREMELY important, per what Scripture says comes after this life. I think, all these years, you've actually been trying to reassure and prove atheism to yourself more than anything else. Because you well know that if you are wrong, then you are in tremendous spiritual danger. If you don't have anything new to add, I think it's beyond redundant to say the same stuff year in and out. So many before me have pointed out so many absurd and wrong contentions you've made about God, Christianity, theism, etc. They've been very patient with you in explaining things, evidences, powerful reasons to believe - all to no avail. But do know this: You are on very thin ice here - you're not here to learn or sincerely consider - you're here to destroy faith in Christ. And that's no longer going to be tolerated. There is nothing new here for you, as you've rejected Christian beliefs. You've even commented upon how your own unbelief has caused heartache in your immediate family, as it's hurt and caused great sadness to you and them. Ken, I wish you well, but I'll waste no further time chasing your rabbits down holes!

Ken, I think parts of this post specifically address people with unbelief like yours (viewtopic.php?p=254815#p254815)- you can't believe if you don't want to - and you can't expect God to reveal Himself to you on YOUR terms. In His great wisdom and ALL-knowing understandings, God reveals Himself to different people, differently, depending upon what He absolutely knows is the level of understanding they TRULY require to come to Him for salvation. He reveals Himself on HIS terms, and not OURS. The creature doesn't say to the Creator, "OK, if you're real and exist, then do this or that and I'll believe in you." Cause Scripture tells us God doesn't work like that.

[Kenny]

Ken: I looked at the video and nowhere does he provide any scientific facts that destroys reasoning for atheism.

Of course he gave scientific facts - and what he describes that SCIENCE confirms makes zero sense that such extraordinary things could have occurred without an intelligent cause. You just don't like his conclusion. [/quote}

{quote}ken:Then provide the scientific theory that support his claim.

Ken: He makes the mistake claiming the Big bang theory is about the origin of the Universe; it is not. The Big bang theory is how the Universe went from singularity to what it is now.

Yes, Singularity preceded he Big Bang, but there was NO universe before the Big Bang - no time, space or matter existed.

{quote}ken; The singularity was made up of matter and energy.

Ken: He keeps referring to the Big Bang as if it were an explosion; it was not, it was an expansion.

READ Ken - RESEARCH what Turek actually believes - and you'll find that Turek well knows the Big Bang was a very CONTROLLED EXPANSION - and not a chaotic explosion (Which we would otherwise expect from a Godless naturalism. Yes, Turek could have been more careful to use a better term ("expansion") to his point of what IMMEDIATELY occurred as the BB began. Which most certainly was NOT chaos - in fact, the polar opposite of chaos occurred. This is just nonsense you're asserting.

Ken, you've spent many years coming onto this forum arguing against the existence of God and Christian beliefs. I have no idea why this is so important to you. Because, if your beliefs are correct, then ultimately it doesn't matter whatsoever what you, I or anyone else believes, as we'd all just die and know nothing further anyway. But if Christian beliefs are correct, what one believes and follows is EXTREMELY important, per what Scripture says comes after this life. I think, all these years, you've actually been trying to reassure and prove atheism to yourself more than anything else. Because you well know that if you are wrong, then you are in tremendous spiritual danger. If you don't have anything new to add, I think it's beyond redundant to say the same stuff year in and out. So many before me have pointed out so many absurd and wrong contentions you've made about God, Christianity, theism, etc. They've been very patient with you in explaining things, evidences, powerful reasons to believe - all to no avail. But do know this: You are on very thin ice here - you're not here to learn or sincerely consider - you're here to destroy faith in Christ. And that's no longer going to be tolerated. There is nothing new here for you, as you've rejected Christian beliefs. You've even commented upon how your own unbelief has caused heartache in your immediate family, as it's hurt and caused great sadness to you and them. Ken, I wish you well, but I'll waste no further time chasing your rabbits down holes!

Ken, I think parts of this post specifically address people with unbelief like yours (viewtopic.php?p=254815#p254815)- you can't believe if you don't want to - and you can't expect God to reveal Himself to you on YOUR terms. In His great wisdom and ALL-knowing understandings, God reveals Himself to different people, differently, depending upon what He absolutely knows is the level of understanding they TRULY require to come to Him for salvation. He reveals Himself on HIS terms, and not OURS. The creature doesn't say to the Creator, "OK, if you're real and exist, then do this or that and I'll believe in you." Cause Scripture tells us God doesn't work like that.

I don’t go around attacking people’s personal religious beliefs; I’m better than that. Don’t take my disagreement as a personal attack or insult; there is nothing wrong with respectfully disagreeing.

[Kenny]

Ken: I looked at the video and nowhere does he provide any scientific facts that destroys reasoning for atheism.

Of course he gave scientific facts - and what he describes that SCIENCE confirms makes zero sense that such extraordinary things could have occurred without an intelligent cause. You just don't like his conclusion.

Then provide the scientific theory that support his claims

[Kenny]

Ken: He makes the mistake claiming the Big bang theory is about the origin of the Universe; it is not. The Big bang theory is how the Universe went from singularity to what it is now.

Philip: Yes, Singularity preceded he Big Bang, but there was NO universe before the Big Bang - no time, space or matter existed.

The singularity was made up of matter and energy.

[Philip]

Philip: Yes, Singularity preceded he Big Bang, but there was NO universe before the Big Bang - no time, space or matter existed.

The singularity was made up of matter and energy.

Perhaps, a better phrasing: Space, time and matter, as we know it, did not exist prior to Big Bang's beginning. And the existence of singularity could not have been eternal, nor derived from eternal things - as singularity itself required an ultimately originating source. As well, not only did the existence of matter and energy require an originating Source, alone they cannot explain the stunning designing and program complex functionalities, directionality, or stunning, synergistic interactions of the Big Bang - no, such didn't come out of an "explosion" either - but of stupendous control of incredible guidance.

See here for BBC article on the timing of physical particles, etc. coming into existence: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2022 ... e-big-bang.

From the article above: "Planck epoch" – a period so early in the Universe's history that our best theories of physics break down." And this is the point at which ANY scientific theory of the universe remains speculation, per a variety of views and ideas - but no PROOF - a point at which theoretical science concerning the birth of the universe hits a dead end of what it can measure or observe.

And here for a philosophical response from Dr. William Lane Craig about the universe's beginning: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... e-universe

[Kenny]

Philip: Yes, Singularity preceded he Big Bang, but there was NO universe before the Big Bang - no time, space or matter existed.

The singularity was made up of matter and energy.

Perhaps, a better phrasing: Space, time and matter, as we know it, did not exist prior to Big Bang's beginning. And the existence of singularity could not have been eternal, nor derived from eternal things - as singularity itself required an ultimately originating source. As well, not only did the existence of matter and energy require an originating Source, alone they cannot explain the stunning designing and program complex functionalities, directionality, or stunning, synergistic interactions of the Big Bang - no, such didn't come out of an "explosion" either - but of stupendous control of incredible guidance.

See here for BBC article on the timing of physical particles, etc. coming into existence: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2022 ... e-big-bang.

From the article above: "Planck epoch" – a period so early in the Universe's history that our best theories of physics break down." And this is the point at which ANY scientific theory of the universe remains speculation, per a variety of views and ideas - but no PROOF - a point at which theoretical science concerning the birth of the universe hits a dead end of what it can measure or observe.

And here for a philosophical response from Dr. William Lane Craig about the universe's beginning: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... e-universe

You make a lot of claims about the Universe concerning issues I am convinced you have no clue about. This is not a slide against you; scientists who study it claim they only know approx 4% of the Universe, the other 96% they have no clue about. So when you say things like “the singularity could not have been eternal,” “material and energy require an originating source” or other empty claims our best scientists do not feel qualified to make, I remain unconvinced you know what you are talking about.

[Philip]

Ken: You make a lot of claims about the Universe concerning issues I am convinced you have no clue about. This is not a slide against you; scientists who study it claim they only know approx 4% of the Universe, the other 96% they have no clue about. So when you say things like “the singularity could not have been eternal,” “material and energy require an originating source” or other empty claims our best scientists do not feel qualified to make, I remain unconvinced you know what you are talking about.

Of course you don't, as you're an atheist. And did you realize that there are currently newer theorized models of what preceded the Big Bang that EXCLUDE Singularity altogether? I doubt you even read through the information I posted. And, as newer models theorizing what preceded the Big Bang don't even factor in Singularity, It is unknown what preceded the Big Bang, as far as whatever elements might have been involved (see below), with a variety of competing theories around.

And this outtake form the Harvard / Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "A new form of energy may have powered the Big Bang. Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang? The "inflationary universe": The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang."

(See more here: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/b ... owered.htm)

Of course, ALL of the ideas as to what PRECEDED the Big Bang are theoretical and unproven. But the Big Bang event itself is nothing short of miraculous, and there is significant scientific agreement by physicists and astronomers upon the extraordinary things that happened, appeared, and began assembling once it began. But whether a single point of infinite density and energy existed - even if somehow eternal, it doesn't explain the brilliant engineering, assembling, designs of the universe's (instantly appearing) building blocks, or the breathtaking precision, inherent in the universe's first moments - nor the extent of the power unleashed. As these incredible things take a brilliant MIND that can design, program and orchestrate with tremendous, unimaginable power. Blind things cannot do this - just as rocks will never dream or do calculus - much less create themselves - but what atheists think is possible far exceeds such things!

[Kenny]

Ken: You make a lot of claims about the Universe concerning issues I am convinced you have no clue about. This is not a slide against you; scientists who study it claim they only know approx 4% of the Universe, the other 96% they have no clue about. So when you say things like “the singularity could not have been eternal,” “material and energy require an originating source” or other empty claims our best scientists do not feel qualified to make, I remain unconvinced you know what you are talking about.

Of course you don't, as you're an atheist. And did you realize that there are currently newer theorized models of what preceded the Big Bang that EXCLUDE Singularity altogether? I doubt you even read through the information I posted. And, as newer models theorizing what preceded the Big Bang don't even factor in Singularity, It is unknown what preceded the Big Bang, as far as whatever elements might have been involved (see below), with a variety of competing theories around.

And this outtake form the Harvard / Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "A new form of energy may have powered the Big Bang. Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang? The "inflationary universe": The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang."

(See more here: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/b ... owered.htm)

Of course, ALL of the ideas as to what PRECEDED the Big Bang are theoretical and unproven. But the Big Bang event itself is nothing short of miraculous, and there is significant scientific agreement by physicists and astronomers upon the extraordinary things that happened, appeared, and began assembling once it began. But whether a single point of infinite density and energy existed - even if somehow eternal, it doesn't explain the brilliant engineering, assembling, designs of the universe's (instantly appearing) building blocks, or the breathtaking precision, inherent in the universe's first moments - nor the extent of the power unleashed. As these incredible things take a brilliant MIND that can design, program and orchestrate with tremendous, unimaginable power. Blind things cannot do this - just as rocks will never dream or do calculus - much less create themselves - but what atheists think is possible far exceeds such things!

I see you making a popular mistake theists often make concerning Atheism. For the Theist, their religion is the most important thing in their life! They will often put it above their family, friends, morality, politics, everything! The problem is they want to assume atheism is as important to the atheist as theism is to them; it is not. Theism provides answers to all of the questions of the Universe. Atheism takes all of that away and offers nothing in return, but the theist will want to insist the Atheist looks at science as the answer to everything; we do not. The name of this thread is “Scientific facts destroys reasoning for atheism”. And what is this supposed reasoning for Atheism? The Big Bang Theory! But the Big Bang theory is not Atheist reasoning, it’s Scientific reasoning. It’s not like a bunch of atheists had a convention, and came up with the Big Bang theory as an affront against Genesis, this theory is the direct result of scientific study. The title should have been Scientific facts destroys reasoning for science! There are likely more theists who believe the big bang theory than atheists (even the Pope believes the theory), yet you seem to be under the impression this theory has something to do with atheism. If you want to find flaws in the Big Bang theory, fine! But in doing this, your critique is against science, not atheism.

[Stu]

Ken: You make a lot of claims about the Universe concerning issues I am convinced you have no clue about. This is not a slide against you; scientists who study it claim they only know approx 4% of the Universe, the other 96% they have no clue about. So when you say things like “the singularity could not have been eternal,” “material and energy require an originating source” or other empty claims our best scientists do not feel qualified to make, I remain unconvinced you know what you are talking about.

Of course you don't, as you're an atheist. And did you realize that there are currently newer theorized models of what preceded the Big Bang that EXCLUDE Singularity altogether? I doubt you even read through the information I posted. And, as newer models theorizing what preceded the Big Bang don't even factor in Singularity, It is unknown what preceded the Big Bang, as far as whatever elements might have been involved (see below), with a variety of competing theories around.

And this outtake form the Harvard / Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "A new form of energy may have powered the Big Bang. Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang? The "inflationary universe": The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang."

(See more here: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/b ... owered.htm)

Of course, ALL of the ideas as to what PRECEDED the Big Bang are theoretical and unproven. But the Big Bang event itself is nothing short of miraculous, and there is significant scientific agreement by physicists and astronomers upon the extraordinary things that happened, appeared, and began assembling once it began. But whether a single point of infinite density and energy existed - even if somehow eternal, it doesn't explain the brilliant engineering, assembling, designs of the universe's (instantly appearing) building blocks, or the breathtaking precision, inherent in the universe's first moments - nor the extent of the power unleashed. As these incredible things take a brilliant MIND that can design, program and orchestrate with tremendous, unimaginable power. Blind things cannot do this - just as rocks will never dream or do calculus - much less create themselves - but what atheists think is possible far exceeds such things!

I see you making a popular mistake theists often make concerning Atheism. For the Theist, their religion is the most important thing in their life! They will often put it above their family, friends, morality, politics, everything! The problem is they want to assume atheism is as important to the atheist as theism is to them; it is not. Theism provides answers to all of the questions of the Universe. Atheism takes all of that away and offers nothing in return, but the theist will want to insist the Atheist looks at science as the answer to everything; we do not. The name of this thread is “Scientific facts destroys reasoning for atheism”. And what is this supposed reasoning for Atheism? The Big Bang Theory! But the Big Bang theory is not Atheist reasoning, it’s Scientific reasoning. It’s not like a bunch of atheists had a convention, and came up with the Big Bang theory as an affront against Genesis, this theory is the direct result of scientific study. The title should have been Scientific facts destroys reasoning for science! There are likely more theists who believe the big bang theory than atheists (even the Pope believes the theory), yet you seem to be under the impression this theory has something to do with atheism. If you want to find flaws in the Big Bang theory, fine! But in doing this, your critique is against science, not atheism.

I see you have set yourself up as the spokesperson for ALL atheists. Interesting.

Tell the likes of Dawkins or Krauss that atheism is not as important to them as religion is to a Christian.
It literally runs their lives, they write books about it. And they have millions of followers who feel the same.

I have a childhood friend who uses Facebook. On his profile it says "Atheist". One of two things. He belongs to atheist Facebook groups.

Atheism matters to him and millions like him a whole lot despite what you claim.

[Philip]

Whazup, Stu?!!! Hope life is going well and safe for your family.

[Stu]

Whazup, Stu?!!! Hope life is going well and safe for your family.

Hi, yip doing fine thanks!

Just watching the world slowly erupt into chaos

[Kenny]

Ken: You make a lot of claims about the Universe concerning issues I am convinced you have no clue about. This is not a slide against you; scientists who study it claim they only know approx 4% of the Universe, the other 96% they have no clue about. So when you say things like “the singularity could not have been eternal,” “material and energy require an originating source” or other empty claims our best scientists do not feel qualified to make, I remain unconvinced you know what you are talking about.

Of course you don't, as you're an atheist. And did you realize that there are currently newer theorized models of what preceded the Big Bang that EXCLUDE Singularity altogether? I doubt you even read through the information I posted. And, as newer models theorizing what preceded the Big Bang don't even factor in Singularity, It is unknown what preceded the Big Bang, as far as whatever elements might have been involved (see below), with a variety of competing theories around.

And this outtake form the Harvard / Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "A new form of energy may have powered the Big Bang. Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang? The "inflationary universe": The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known. At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang."

(See more here: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/b ... owered.htm)

Of course, ALL of the ideas as to what PRECEDED the Big Bang are theoretical and unproven. But the Big Bang event itself is nothing short of miraculous, and there is significant scientific agreement by physicists and astronomers upon the extraordinary things that happened, appeared, and began assembling once it began. But whether a single point of infinite density and energy existed - even if somehow eternal, it doesn't explain the brilliant engineering, assembling, designs of the universe's (instantly appearing) building blocks, or the breathtaking precision, inherent in the universe's first moments - nor the extent of the power unleashed. As these incredible things take a brilliant MIND that can design, program and orchestrate with tremendous, unimaginable power. Blind things cannot do this - just as rocks will never dream or do calculus - much less create themselves - but what atheists think is possible far exceeds such things!

I see you making a popular mistake theists often make concerning Atheism. For the Theist, their religion is the most important thing in their life! They will often put it above their family, friends, morality, politics, everything! The problem is they want to assume atheism is as important to the atheist as theism is to them; it is not. Theism provides answers to all of the questions of the Universe. Atheism takes all of that away and offers nothing in return, but the theist will want to insist the Atheist looks at science as the answer to everything; we do not. The name of this thread is “Scientific facts destroys reasoning for atheism”. And what is this supposed reasoning for Atheism? The Big Bang Theory! But the Big Bang theory is not Atheist reasoning, it’s Scientific reasoning. It’s not like a bunch of atheists had a convention, and came up with the Big Bang theory as an affront against Genesis, this theory is the direct result of scientific study. The title should have been Scientific facts destroys reasoning for science! There are likely more theists who believe the big bang theory than atheists (even the Pope believes the theory), yet you seem to be under the impression this theory has something to do with atheism. If you want to find flaws in the Big Bang theory, fine! But in doing this, your critique is against science, not atheism.

I see you have set yourself up as the spokesperson for ALL atheists. Interesting.

No; I have not done that. My point is, you are not required to value atheism above everything else in order to be an atheist. Of course that doesn't prevent some people who might choose to value it above everything else.