Why do atheists lie about the origins of the Universe?

[Wade12345]

Updates

+1 y

Like seriously, Nothing can't create something. Nothing is an empty set, and an empty set has no solutions and no creative power.

Nothing{} cannot create anything.

You Atheists talk about logical self-contradictions, then you try to propose the biggest contradiction of all. NOTHING cannot Create anything.

Updates

+1 y

Free Moral Agency controls the quantum realm, not the other way around. The quantum does not create reality, the First Cause creates the Quantum. We can prove free will controls quantum processes, because every quantum experiment and computer is designed by a free will. Thus the quantum reality can only do what the creator or observer's free will allows it to do.

Updates

+1 y

No, you said one thing here, and then changed your words on anohter of my threads and then falsely accused me of lying about it. That means my original accusation of you being LIARS was the truth.

Here, countesssarah admitted there had ot be a first cause, then in another thread she lied about it and said she didn't say that. My point exactly. You can't even tell the truth about your own beliefs.

Updates

+1 y

Look, the moderator deleted the other thread anyway, allegedly because I didn't have the title in a question format, according to the message I got anyway. I think it's just the moderators deleting anything they don't agree with as usual. Anyway, CountessSarah changed her words as usual, so either way I caught her at least in a blatant lie, and I caught the others among you as being ignorant of what the leading Atheist debaters claim in formal debates.

[WatThe_Wat]

No, we don't lie about the origin of the universe.

"Like seriously, Nothing can't create something. Nothing is an empty set, and an empty set has no solutions and no creative power."
No one said 'nothing' created something. Point to a 'nothing' and you've pointed to something.

'Nothing{} cannot create anything.'
No one said it could.

'You Atheists talk about logical self-contradictions, then you try to propose the biggest contradiction of all. NOTHING cannot Create anything.'
You're strawmanning a position atheists don't hold. That's dishonest of you.

"1 dFree Moral Agency controls the quantum realm, not the other way around."
Show that to be true. Claiming it to be true is not equivalent to it actually being true.
"The quantum does not create reality, the First Cause creates the Quantum. We can prove free will controls quantum processes, because every quantum experiment and computer is designed by a free will. Thus the quantum reality can only do what the creator or observer's free will allows it to do."

Show there's a 'first cause' and that the first cause is a moral agency.

[Wade12345]

that's dishonest of you. I posted alink to Richard Dawkins claiming the Universe came from nothing, a nd he was citing Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking.

You are either a liar or ill-informed.

[Wade12345]

There is a First Cause is provable because the Universe and Multiverse are not self-eternal and they did not come from nothing at all. Therefore the existence of a First Cause is "Necessarily True".

Quantum Wave functions are resolved/collapsed by the act of observation of a free Will. (Imagining the Tenth Dimension, Rob Bryanton).

The First cause is a moral agency because all goodness and all evil come from the First Cause. this does not justify evil though. Our free will manifests evil actions. The First Cause will reconcile good and evil.

[slatyb]

"The universe is not eternal" How do you know? What supports that assertion. All we know is the limits of our observations.

Besides, all this discussion about "First cause" is pointless. It's makes no predictions. It's not testable. It's not a scientific theory and explains nothing. Even if I granted that it were true, so what? There's still nothing to support the beliefs of currently popular religions. Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark and the Exodus are still just myths. There's no evidence that an afterlife is real. All evidence about the efficacy of prayer is negative.

[Tamera952]

What the fuck is ‘first cause’ …what the hell do you mean by ‘self-eternal’ ? You throw around these arbitrary & insane terms, trying to force some kind of reconciliation between science fact, speculation, & theology where none exists.

[slatyb]

@Tamera952 self-eternal? I didn’t say that.

[slatyb]

Oops, that reply wasn’t for me.

[slatyb]

How could we lie? We don’t claim to know. Some religious believers are certain they know but they have nothing to support their beliefs besides old myths. The arguments you are making are just word salad, they explain nothing. There is one thing we do know — prayer doesn’t work. Religious believers fare no better than non-believers.

But if you are talking about the creation of technology, science, and Western culture in the 20th and 21st Century, it’s all atheists. High tech, scientific research, modern physics, music, film, American comedy, television, literature, almost everything noteworthy was created by atheists and Jews.

[CountessSarah]

20 seconds in and already you're way off.

Atheism has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or any such claims about it.
For the sake of argument - I'll grant you that nothing can happen without a cause, fine - You still haven't made any case against atheism, because you need to demonstrate a god. And you now have the added issue of having established nothing can begin without a cause, which applies to your god claim too, otherwise your guilty of Special Pleading.

If we don't know anything about the origin of the universe, atheism is still a perfectly justified position. The origin of the universe is irrelevant.

[CountessSarah]

"Anyway, CountessSarah changed her words as usual, so either way I caught her at least in a blatant lie, and I caught the others among you as being ignorant of what the leading Atheist debaters claim in formal debates. "
Fuck off, Wade, I already addressed this. You're either willfully lying or as dumb as I think you are.

[Tamera952]

They don't. Atheist don't make a "claim" about anything.

[Oigit]

Both sides of this debate can be wrong. But both sides are unwilling to admit it. Both sides have completely failed to provide any unequivocal proof that their side of the debate is correct. Also the views of both sides are fully based on belief. Belief can be very subjective and can be influenced as well. A persons beliefs can be negatively influenced to the point that it becomes a negative influences on ourselves and others. Given all of this it's best for the atheism and creationism debate is a futile debate for both sides. A debate that can also cause more harm then good for people on both sides as well.

[CountessSarah]

Atheism doesn't have a 'side of the debate' - atheism doesn't deal with the origin of the universe.

[Wade12345]

@CountessSarah

Another lie. Every atheist debater I've ever watched tried to prove the Universe existed without God.

You don't even know your own beliefs.

[Wade12345]

@CountessSarah

The First Cause is a very special Being, so Special Pleading for a Special Being is not a fallacy.

The first Cause does not itself have a cause, otherwise it wouldn't be first.

Grow up, and stop trying to trap me in your vain words. It won't work.

[CountessSarah]

Wade, you need to listen to me here - If you cannot tell other people what their position is, OK?
The best authority to tell you what I believe, is me. Not you. Me.
Your basically claiming to know what's in my head more than I do.
Imagine if I started doing the same to you. You don't really believe this god crap, it's just a front. And let me explain why you don't think a god exists, blah, blah, blah.
Whatever follows, isn't going to be convincing to you. Because I'm not addressing what you've actually said or what you believe.

[Oigit]

At it's core Atheism denies the existence of deities. Creationism is based around the universe and all living things being divine creations. So it's a case of both sides of the debate being wrong due to being unable to prove their side correct. Simply due to both sides being completely unable to to present unequivocal evidence to prove their side is correct. Hence the the never ending debate.

For all anyone knows the truth could be in the middle. Such as their are deities that laid the ground word for existence, set processes such as evolution in motion and simply removed themselves from our plain of existence and left no trace.

[Wade12345]

@CountessSarah

No, I'm not backing down, because you don't know your own beliefs. watch some professional physicists who are atheists debate, and you'll see what atheism is. It's an attempt to explain away reality with no cause whatsoever, and in a vain attempt to overthrow God.

You just admitted two posts ago that there must be a cause of reality outside nothing itself. That means you're not a real atheist, you're an agnostic. There's a difference.

You admitted:

1) Nothing itself can't be the cause.
2) There must be a cause (which excludes self eternity of the universe itself obviously).

The First Cause must be self-motivated, because it cannot be motivated by anything outside itself. Therefore the Cosmological Argument concludes that the First Cause is a free moral agent. Namely a Mind, which is God.

[CountessSarah]

Atheism doesn't have a burden of proof. It's the rejection of a claim.

If I claim unicorns exist and you don't, neither of us has any evidence for our claim. But that doesn't make us equally justified. I have to prove my unicorn claim is true. You on the other hand have no burden of proof because providing negative-evidence of such a claim is impossible.

[CountessSarah]

"No, I'm not backing down, because you don't know your own beliefs."

Then... you're an idiot, Wade. I dunno what else to tell you.

[Oigit]

@CountessSarah Honestly a lot what I see from both sides is a lot of the debate is right fighting. I am right and I don't have to prove it seems to sum up the entire argument on both sides. I'm not the kind of person that is going to take anyone's for it. Hence I'm not going Church or a Atheist function. So maybe creationists should be working on getting their deities visits no believers like me and Atheists should finally prove that big bang theory is more then a scientific theory.

[CountessSarah]

Atheism is not tied to the big bang theory.
Atheism deals with the existence of a god and nothing else.

[Wade12345]

@CountessSarah

No. Atheists attempt to incorrectly use Occam's Razor to claim that the Big Bang is all that is needed, and no God is needed to create reality. Then the ones that go that route try to claim everything came from nothing at all for no reason.

I'll tell you a third time, you don't know your own beliefs, and you sure as hell don't know what the majority of Atheists argue in defense of their no-god position. They absolutely try to prove God doesn't exist by trying to prove everything came from nothing for no reason at all.

https://youtu.be/2TCD6-tZJVY

[CountessSarah]

If you won't address my actual position, I see no reason in any further interaction with you. You're attacking positions I don't hold.

Why do you think the Earth is flat, Wade?

[Wade12345]

Notice how many times Dawkins either completely lies or else appeals to the authority of Krausse, which is a fallacy.

[Wade12345]

Matter plus anti-matter releases gamma rays, not "nothing". Scientists with real degrees have shown you can create matter from the collision of two photons, but not "from nothing".

Dawkins in this case is a liar.

[CountessSarah]

How many times have I told you -
I'm. Not. Richard. Dawkins.

[Oigit]

@CountessSarah You definition of it might. But Atheism can be like religion. There are so many takes on the same thing that it can be impossible to keep track of what congregation we are talking about. Because it's like any gathering or collection of people, animals, or things it can be hard to keep track of everything in the group.

[Still-alive]

Lol you’re getting pwned badly dude

[Oigit]

@Still-alive You know those people that might want to watch the world burn? That's me. I posted something knowing it would get an atheist or creationist to come after me. Wade was a bonus

[Wade12345]

@CountessSarah

Maybe, but you can't seem to realize you've contradicted yourself either way. Now You've admitted there does need to be a First Cause for the Universe and all of reality, but you can't seem to admit the First Cause needs to be self-motivated.

I'll stop branding you with the Atheists I have in question. Can you at least admit that the majority of physicists who are atheists are in fact arguing for one of two false hypotheticals? Either they argue everything came from nothing, or they argue everything is self-eternal. Einstein thought the universe was self-eternal, but Hubble and Lamaitre proved him wrong. Rene Descartes long ago proved "from nothing comes nothing". So those two false hypotheticals should immediately be discarded by any rational person.

So I see you do admit both of those false hypotheticals are wrong, then you need to admit that the First Cause you already admitted is necessary must also be self-motivated.

[CountessSarah]

"Maybe, but you can't seem to realize you've contradicted yourself either way."
No. I cannot contradict myself, because I have made no claim.
/You/ said everything needed a cause and I just granted you that for /your/ case. I haven't asserted anything, I just haven't challenged you. Those are not the same thing.

"but you can't seem to admit the First Cause needs to be self-motivated."
No. 'Self-motivated' applies to a thinking agent. You would have to demonstrate your first cause was a thinking entity. Again, all of the problems are on you to deal with. You make the claim, you have the burden of proof. All I've done is say that I'm unconvinced.

"Can you at least admit that the majority of physicists who are atheists are in fact arguing for one of two false hypotheticals?"
You're sort of correct -
Most atheists do subscribe to one of those two ideas, sure.
However, the important bit you miss every time is that it's irrelevant to atheism.
Atheism only deals with whether a god exists or not. It doesn't matter what position an atheist holds on the origin of the universe or whether they're wrong - It's irrelevant to their position as atheists.
If... 80% of Stamp Collectors are also Trainspotters, that doesn't mean that trainspotting is a tenet of stamp collecting. Do you understand?

"So I see you do admit both of those false hypotheticals are wrong, then you need to admit that the First Cause you already admitted is necessary must also be self-motivated."
No on both counts - I haven't asserted either claim to be wrong. And you need to demonstrate your thinking entity before we get to 'self motivated'.

[Tamera952]

@CountessSarah she’s right, atheists does NOT deal with origin of the universe

[Tamera952]

*atheism (I meant)

[genericname85]

why do you lie about atheism? atheism has nothing at all to do with how the world how we experience them got here. they just say they don't believe in god. that has nothing to do with what you're saying.

also you don't understand the big bang theory. big bang theory doesn't at all say that everything came from nothing. that's a strawman argument used by christians. no actual atheist or scientist who is an expert on this (which again has nothing to do with atheism) says this.

[Wade12345]

lol. lawrence krauss, stephen hawking, Neil degrasse tyson. et al. they all say that.

[genericname85]

No they do explicitly not say that everything came from nothing. they say that it is observable that everything is on a trajectory away from one small spot. So everything that we can see was in a very small space.

This does not mean that all we see is everything there is. And that does not mean that there was nothing at some point. People are speaking of a singularity, not of a nothingness. But those are theories anyway. Fact is that er do not know and every scientist says that. Sure there may be one atheist that believes there was nothing before the big bang but that is their individual shit. It has nothing to do with atheism.

There is no atheistic doctrine or manifesto that says atheism believe everything came from nothing. That's just bullshit christians made up to ridicule them.

[genericname85]

Atheism exclusively means that you do not believe in god. It has no other meaning. It says nothing about how the universe came about. Point and case. Those believes are separate from atheism.

[genericname85]

By the way. Not even most christians believe the biblical creation myth, cause observable reality contradicts it.

[genericname85]

We do not know everything about the universe. But we damn well know that earth and life on it did not originate as the bible claims it did.

[jshm2]

Atheists can lie and conspire all they like - it's in their nature, and why they can never be honest or trustworthy.

Just as an honest man cannot be dishonest, but a thief can be whatever he likes since he has no honour or trust.

[OfDeath]

How do you think the first cause got there? Did it come from nothing? Was it always there?

[Wade12345]

Since nothing cannot produce something, the First Cause must always have existed. The first cause did necessarily change it's own status on at least one occasion. At some point it changed from a "Chaos" non-creative stage to a creative stage. This does not mean "disorder" but it does mean an observer, had there been one, would not be able to predict the actions of the First Cause.

Since the First Cause necessarily contains all possibilities, and because Free Will is a possibility that actually exists, then the First Cause must be the ultimate free will. Also, since the first cause is not caused by anything outside itself, it can't be deterministic, it must be free will.

Dr. Michio Kaku, officially an agnostic, has argued that free will exists, because quantum uncertainty is actually resolved by free will.

[OfDeath]

"First Cause must always have existed."

So it relies on the quality of always having existed/past eternity in order to exist. If something can always have existed, then fundamental nature could've always existed and god is obviated. Hence, god being a philosophical self contradiction.

Creator god is reliant on qualities which deem it unnecessary and pointless and which are not reliant on a creator god.
A reliant entity can't be a first cause.

[Wade12345]

It has been proven scientifically that space-time continuums cannot be self-eternal, therefore something self-eternal created the Universe. It's really quite simple, and you making up false conditions to meet doesn't change the truth.

[OfDeath]

"It has been proven scientifically that space-time continuums cannot be self-eternal, therefore something self-eternal created the Universe"

Even if that was true, it is still a non sequitur if you're arguing for both a god or another deliberate creator. Self eternity as a quality does not necessitate a creator god. The god is the contingent being in this case and is therefore illogical as a first cause.

"It's really quite simple, and you making up false conditions to meet doesn't change the truth."

I haven't made up any false conditions. It is pure logic that if anything may be eternal both ways, then any being existing as a result of eternity is reliant on that eternity for its existence or it couldn't exist. But the eternity itself is not reliant in being or using a creator god. So creator god is obviated in that scenario, would not need to exist and given the infinite possibilities of unknown things which may be fundamental nature and result in the universe other than a fantasy being with magical powers called God, most likely wouldn't.

Then you have the problem of calling your god a first cause. There is no first in eternity to both temporal directions. There is no eternity in a-temporal existence either.

You simply cannot get away from this dilemma for your god. You have two choices. Either you recognize the absurdity of your belief or you remain willfully ignorant.

[Wade12345]

No it is not illogical for God to be the first cause. The First Cause must be self-motivated, because there is nothing beside itself to motivate itself. Therefor the First Cause is a Free Moral Agent. therefore the first cause is God by definition of the term God. God is the first cause.

[OfDeath]

"No it is not illogical" is not an argument. Unsurprising that you haven't come up with a rebuttal to the dilemma I've pointed out facing creator god. Because you don't have one. I've never cone across a theist who has.

Morality is also certainly not a requirement for any creator let alone the first. But that us just in the territory of mental projection. Totally irrelevant to the logical contradictions I've shown.

[OfDeath]

And motivation requires agency. Something which is superfluous to fundamental existence.

[Wade12345]

You're projecting a condition of existence which is not necessarily true for the First Cause since it is self-eternal. You're also projecting the conditions and logic of this universe onto the First Cause in a way you don't have specific knowledge to do so. We cannot hypothesize how it's possible for the First Cause to be self-motivated, only that it is necessarily true that it must be self-motivated.

Do you have an alternative hypothesis to Free Will which explains self-motivation of the First Cause?

The only alternative I can propose would be "Classical Chaos" because it MIGHT be Self-Motivated, but the evidence in this Universe strongly suggests this Universe was not created by classical chaos. This universe obeys LOGIC, which means it was in fact created by a pre-existing intelligence. Even Dr. Kaku said the entire Multiverse could only exist if it was in fact Created by a pre-existing intelligence. (He's becoming a Deist lately instead of an Agnostic as far as I can tell anyway.)

[Wade12345]

Did you know it's physically possible for the Creator to know everything even about our Free Will in the future, because Tachyons were created in the future, and the Creator can observe the Tachyons in the past and know what we've done in the future without "Magic"?

In the Bible in the Old Testament, he says, "I am God, declaring the End from the Beginning." He literally knows everything, and Tachyons are a physical mechanism which God uses to give Divine Prophecy to human beings.

Now that I've proven to you and CountessSarah that there must be a First Cause and it needs to be Self-Motivated, I can now use Personal Testimony to bear witness that the First Cause is in fact a Conscious Being. For starters, I've actually had Divine Prophecies come to pass, AND I've actually seen real angels and an Archangel which prophesied to me the Healing and Curing of my sister's Stage 3 Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Why would I lie about that? I am bearing witness to bonafide MIRACLES which agree with the notion of the First Cause actually being an Almighty Creator God.

Now I will prophesy to you that the price of Concrete in the NEAR FUTURE will rise to $450 per cubic yard in the United States due to inflation and the Paris Accord and other reasons. This will make it impossible to build storm resistant homes and businesses, and will make it impossible to maintain roads and bridges too.

[OfDeath]

Look, CLEARLY you don't understand. Pay attention: If self eternalism is a possibility, a creator god wouldn't have to exist. There would be nothing for it to do! Because fundamental nature could just be self eternal. I'm not projecting this. I am simply using the condition YOU have given your idea of god against it. It's a condition which it is reliant on but the condition is not reliant upon god since it can be attached to other, more likely and less fantastical things.

Pay closer attention now: eternal is not first. An eternal being never came into existence and cannot be first. It is also not a condition that there can only be 1 eternal entity in nature, be it a god or anything else. Stating that only god could be eternal is causal reduction fallacy. You are using fallacious and illogical reasoning.

Motivation is a trait of agency. There is no requirement for fundamental nature to have deliberate agency. To posit a being with agency goes against the observation that prodigious complexity arises from simpler origins. A beginning entity with magic, deliberate agency and "morals" is a reductio and absurdum!

Free will? It may exist but humans don't have it. You are an instinctive reactor like all other animals. Sam Harris is very good at explaining that and experiments back it up. Every action you perform is triggered before you're aware of it.

[OfDeath]

Machio Kaku may have said only an intelligence could create the multiverse, I'm not going quote mining over it because it is isn't relevant, and even if he did he has no evidence for it anyway. You also need to take into account that if it was created on purpose, that statement would have to be true, but it doesn't have to have been purposely created to exist! It could just be another feature of nature. The argument from design is extremely flawed. There are no observable outcomes in the universe which would be flattering to a designer. It behaves exactly as if it wasn't designed. Citing the laws of physics doesn't bode well for the argument when we haven't the first clue about why they are as they are or if they can be any different. Using them as an argument from design is an argument from ignorance fallacy. (We dont know how the laws of physics got there, therefore god).

God is a logical self contradiction, a puerile fantasy, a redundant explanation for that which has been discovered to not be the work of the divine after all and mostly a pitiful and unhelpful non-explanation for the unknown.

[OfDeath]

Tachyons have never been detected. All you're giving me is more mental projection. More fantasy. This is basically the same as telling me god has a magic mirror. You're not doing yourself any favors going down that path. "God can do this, god can do that". These are all claims which you have no evidence for.

"Now that I've proven to you and CountessSarah that there must be a First Cause"
You haven't proven that. Not even close. You haven't even come up with a rebuttal to the dilemma that your creator god is reliant on qualities which are not reliant on it, therefore it wouldn't need to and most likely wouldn't exist, since nature could exist without it.

Personal testimony is not reliable evidence, scientifically. I've also seen what you claim to be prophecies in the past and they don't meet the standard of specificity to be considered divine prophesy as opposed to educated guessing or even just plain guessing.

I know you mean well, but you seriously need to take a step back and review all of this god crap you go on about. It's a logical self contradiction at the most basic level of logic.

[Wade12345]

Dr. Kaku proved free will exists on the Big Think.

Sam Harris is a crank and often argues about subject matter he isn't even remotely an expert upon.

https://youtu.be/Jint5kjoy6I

[OfDeath]

No he didn't.

[Anonymous]

The liars are the ones who claim to know things they can’t possibly know.

[Anonymous]

What kind of proof do you have?

[AndrésC64]

Wow, 25 seconds in and you are already wrong.

[Anonymous]

atheism the religion of disney

[Anonymous]

yes 100%