If you are interested in where the universe came from and are only willing to consider arguments from physics then you already more than halfway to being completely biased.

I don't reject things without having considered the notion of an alternative or any competing theories and objections in a spirit of openminded seriouisness.

Bandying about words like magic man and sky fairy indicates you haven't taken the debate seriously. You haven't considered alternative intellectual and philisophical paradigms as discussed as far back as to the ancients with their eternally pertinent questions.

twistor59 wrote:

Andrew4Handel wrote:The majority of Physicists have not come to the same conclusion as Lawrence Krauss. Therefore his model of a universe from "nothing" is not the primary or automatic conclusion brought to by physics.

Yes they have and yes it is the consensus.

Show me evidence that this is the overriding opinion (backed up with facts)?

Even if it were it would be highly implausible.

As I have said I find it implausible that phsyicists have access to the entirety of the universe in the first place. Big bang is a theory which isn't universally believed. http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ Raises inpenetrable questions.. (what can the universe expand into etc

I really do think peoples skepticism about cosmology is at an all time low...

And also I doubt people on here have a sufficient grasp of physics for it to form a plausible basis for their atheism.

A physical law that proved something could come from nothing would not only be coherent but not rule out anything appearing from anywhere for no reason.

Now you can just throw physics books at non atheists heads and claim that if only they understood degree level physics they would be an atheist..I cry a big bollocks...

Andrew4Handel wrote:Now you can just throw physics books at non atheists heads and claim that if only they understood degree level physics they would be an atheist..I cry a big bollocks...

Much like some people claim that if only atheists understood philosophy to degree level then they wouldn't be atheists?

(There was a prat called Mike_Cullen on RDF who even had something like that in his signature)

Paul wrote:
Much like some people claim that if only atheists understood philosophy to degree level then they wouldn't be atheists?

(There was a prat called Mike_Cullen on RDF who even had something like that in his signature)

I don't think you need to understand philosophy you just have to understand the idea that a non physics based criticism can be made on grounds of logic.

If physicists define their own notion of nothingness then it is not going to be accessible to the lay person and will be divorced from any other concepts of nothingness and casusality in academia and common sense.

I often refer to consciousness here because if we want to base an ultimate state of reality on a physics copnception then everything has to bee reducible to physics and physics laws and consciousness has not yet being at all conceptualised or explained in itself let alone reduced to physics and yet that is our own access to a reality through consciousness.

Physicists that maybe claiming their theories are a "theory of everything" have to explain why these gaps in kowledge appear considering what is supposed to be the overarching nature of their eexplanation.

Where is Krausses theory of consciousness?

And subjects such as consciousness are currently explored in a wide range of disciplines including philosophy.

And one thing I know for a fact is that an atheist can't claim knowledge of how consciousness is possible and can't be basing their world view on a complete knowledge of fundamental aspects of reality.

Andrew4Handel wrote:If you are interested in where the universe came from and are only willing to consider arguments from physics then you already more than halfway to being completely biased.

I don't reject things without having considered the notion of an alternative or any competing theories and objections in a spirit of openminded seriouisness.

Bandying about words like magic man and sky fairy indicates you haven't taken the debate seriously. You haven't considered alternative intellectual and philisophical paradigms as discussed as far back as to the ancients with their eternally pertinent questions.

What is your method for establishing which theories are right and which are not?

Andrew4Handel wrote:The question is not why did something come from nothing it is why does something exist at all.

If you had even the remotest understanding of what Krauss was talking about (likely not having read any of his work or indeed watched the lecture in question), you would know that a) Physicists don't think the universe came from nothing and b) that the second question has been answered by physics without, I might add, any necessity for astral voyeurs.

Andrew4Handel wrote:And also I doubt people on here have a sufficient grasp of physics for it to form a plausible basis for their atheism.

Why is "a sufficient grasp of physics" necessary to recognise there is no evidence nor reason for gods?

Much of your writing in recent posts is as crudely screaming "Aha, a Gap! There is god!" as I have seen here in a long while.

Panderos wrote:What is your method for establishing which theories are right and which are not?

Theories about what?

We go through reality using heuristics we don't test the validity of all our beliefs.

I accept the limitations of my knowledge.

Xeno wrote:Why is "a sufficient grasp of physics" necessary to recognise there is no evidence nor reason for gods?


.

Dawkins said that if there wasn't a theory of evolution then it would be stupid not to think things in nature weren't designed.

So Dawkins answers you question for you.

When you look at nature it bears the hallmarks of being designed or being to complicated, implausible and efficient to be designed.

So on first looking at reality the first thought that (logically) springs to ones mind is not that it is lacking in purpose and appeared out of nowhere for no reason.

The hypothesis that reality might be created (by a deity or something else) arrives based on a psychological need for explanation and or logic and causality also arguably based on the logical nature of cognitive systems.

Claiming the universe appeared from nothing is highly suspect but seems designed solely for the consumption of atheists.

I prefer to be an agnostic and accept my limitations. I am contesting the ideas from atheists that there is no need for a deity like creator explanation because I don't accept their grounds for holding these beliefs, not to because i want to prove that there is a god or gods.

To be an atheist I thought one surely does not have to claim completely knowledge of reality and rule out a creator altogether?

I thought atheism was disbelief based on a current lack of evidence. However on the evidence issue I don't think we can rule out logically the universe or realioty itself as evidence for a deity which is precisely why I am an agnostic. And I have problem with atheists promoting this world view of nothingness nihilist viewpoint with out substantial support.

It seems here that to be an atheist (authentic atheist) one has to agree with common (as muck) arguments used by atheist rather than reach atheithism based on ones own rationale. that is why atheism gets targetted as a belief system..

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Xeno wrote:Why is "a sufficient grasp of physics" necessary to recognise there is no evidence nor reason for gods?

Dawkins said that if there wasn't a theory of evolution then it would be stupid not to think things in nature weren't designed.

I pretty much stopped reading there. Fuck Dawkins' comment. It was plainly a stupid thing for him to say and quite likely a quote mine. He knows that evolution was recognised long before Darwin and Wallace devised their theory, and in the now very improbable event we should find a different and better theory than the modern synthesis (which advances a long way on Darwin and Wallace) then we would have a new and better theory, not a reason to imagine design was a good idea beforehand let alone now.

May I remind you that, despite not having any inkling of the theory of evolution and probably not even aware of evolution itself, David Hume debunked design back in the mid-eighteenth century, a hundred years before Darwin wrote. Hume's arguments remain substantially cogent today, improved for advances in knowledge.

Therefore, your opening premise is silly.


As for the rest of your teleological fantasy so I will waste no further time on it while we can not even get past the opening paragraph.

Andrew4Handel wrote:The hypothesis that reality might be created (by a deity or something else) arrives based on a psychological need for explanation and or logic and causality also arguably based on the logical nature of cognitive systems.

Bollocks. It can't logically do anything, because the idea that any entity created reality is fucking absurd. It would require that an entity exist before there was any existence; a paradox.

This is what fuckwittery will get you.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

twistor59 wrote:

Andrew4Handel wrote:The majority of Physicists have not come to the same conclusion as Lawrence Krauss. Therefore his model of a universe from "nothing" is not the primary or automatic conclusion brought to by physics.

Yes they have and yes it is the consensus.

Show me evidence that this is the overriding opinion (backed up with facts)?

That's impossible to do without canvassing the opinions of a representative sample of cosmologists, just as it is impossible for you to prove to me that the majority believe in some other mechanism.

However:

Discussion of the origin of the universe belongs to the field of quantum cosmology. The field has not yet matured since the key ingredient is not yet available - namely a theory of quantum gravity. However, it is beyond dispute that at the time of writing this post, most physicsts accept inflation as the answer to the flatness problem, and most physicists see inflation as being kicked off from vacuum tunneling processes. So they see cosmic expansions as originating from vacua (or so-called "false vacua"). The fact that you put "nothing" in quotes indicates to me that you understand and accept that we're talking about quantum vacuum states rather than philosophical "nothing".

Andrew4Handel wrote:The majority of Physicists have not come to the same conclusion as Lawrence Krauss. Therefore his model of a universe from "nothing" is not the primary or automatic conclusion brought to by physics.

It would be correct to say that the majority of physicists do not subscribe to the exact version of cosmology as Krauss does. There are several different models on the origin of the universe. But the majority of physicists do agree with Lawrence Krauss in that they don't think inventing magic men is a valid solution to the problem. In fact, the majority of tenured Cosmologists, you know, those physicists whose job it is to work on the origin of the universe, are atheists.

Andrew4Handel wrote:However there is also Biology and chemistry which are not physics and consciousness which is not explained by current models of physics.

There are countless unsolved problems in all of science, but given the history of the success of science, it has turned out there was a perfectly natural explanation for all of them so far.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Feel free to to base your whole world view around physics (a physics fudge) though if that is what is supporting your atheism.

What's supporting my atheism is a combination of the complete nonexistence of evidence for deities and the lack of a coherent definiton of the same.

Andrew4Handel wrote:The question is not why did something come from nothing it is why does something exist at all.

Correct, and under Krauss' hypothesis the answer is that the fundamental nature of the universe prevents a state of absolute nothingness, and the universe has always existed and always will. There was never a state of absolute nothing.

Andrew4Handel wrote: Which is different and means the question of what nothing is is a side issue (sideshow).

No, the answer given by Krauss is actually a logically valid answer to that question. It might not be the correct answer, we don't know yet. The main point of the book is succinctly that science has progressed to a point where physics is starting to have something to say on these old philosophical questions, and solutions are possible without recourse to bronze-age fable and doctrine.

Andrew4Handel wrote:
Claiming the universe appeared from nothing is highly suspect but seems designed solely for the consumption of atheists

I prefer to be an agnostic

Have you watched the Krauss video Andrew for there is no such thing as nothing in physics : and no physicist can
make such a claim either : is too much fluctuation in the quantum world for absolute nothing to be for matter
and anti matter cancel each other out : though by virtue of them both existing your fallacious claim cannot
be true : aside from this Krauss video [ which appears to be identical to the one which he gave in front
of Richard Dawkins so why the need for two of them ] there was also last year on BBC 4 an excellent
series on nothing by Jim Al Khalili explaining this in rather more detail : I have seen it twice now

I am an atheist but an agnostic as opposed to gnostic one : do not believe in the existence of metaphysical entitities though
reserve judgement given how the Scientific Method is not capable of investigating any thing that transcends the physical
If it could be proven beyond all reasonable doubt however that the metaphysical did indeed exist then I would accept it
One must always reference reality as it really is and not as one wishes it to be : should be true of us all irrespective
of whatever belief system we may aspire to : however as things currently stand I see no reason to believe in the
metaphysical and am 6.8 on the Dawkins scale : though I fully acknowledge that the Scientific Method may be
less than perfect but is nevertheless the best indicator of reality there is : I mean objective reality of the
natural world and not the subjective reality of human interpretation particularly pertaining to religion

Andrew4Handel wrote:
I prefer to be an agnostic and accept my limitations.

You still do not understand that atheism and agnosticism are not of the same category do you?

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Panderos wrote:What is your method for establishing which theories are right and which are not?

Theories about what?

We go through reality using heuristics we don't test the validity of all our beliefs.

I accept the limitations of my knowledge.

Theories about how the universe works. I don't think we arrived at quantum theory by heuristics.

Oh look who's joined the party! This is going to be fun ...

Andrew4Handel wrote:The current desire to prove that the universe can come from nowhere for no reason

How many times have I told you, that physicists regard TESTABLE NATURAL PROCESSES as being responsible for observed phenomena? Do I have to embarrass you by going back through every instance of my doing this, in order to demonstrate the inherent dishonesty of your above assertion? Because you have been repeatedly educated with respect to this, and your continued peddling of the "nothing for no reason" canard AFTER being thus educated, merely demonstrates that you're not here to learn anything, but simply here to post apologetic faeces in support of whatever facile pseudo-ideas happen to be twinkling like tinsel in front of your mind's eye at the moment.

Andrew4Handel wrote:suggests to me that athiest thinkers are worried that the existence of the universe itself is evidence of a creator/deity.

Bullshit. Do actual research physicists look in the slightest bit "worried" about waffle and hot air from ignorant supernaturalists, who want to pretend that their pet magic man did it all? Er, no. They're getting on with the business of actual scientific research aimed at answering the questions. instead of pretending that some old book of myths has all the answers. Here's a nice little graphic for you that illustrates the difference nicely:

Andrew4Handel wrote:Surely science is supposed to be based at least partially on observation?

Oh please, do tell me when your magic man was observed. Only if you have real evidence to this effect, the Nobel Prize for Physics is yours for the taking.

Andrew4Handel wrote:The idea of nothing leading to the current reality is speculative.

Er, a demonstration that a given process is described by consistent mathematics, and is in accord with known physics, is some way removed from the "magic man did it" brand of "speculation". Instead of wasting your time with vacuous apologetics, go and learn some of the physics.

Andrew4Handel wrote:But why try and pin a biased thesis on the universe

Oh, and you think "magic man did it" isn't a "biased thesis"? Why does this not surprise me in the least? Now, what do you think those of us who paid attention in science class, will regard as being more "biased" here - a demonstration that a given process is mathematically consistent, and in accord with known physics, or a blind assertion that an invisible magic man did it, just because the magic man fetishist prefers mythology to actual physics?

Andrew4Handel wrote:which it doesn't require and doesn't explain anything?

Exactly how does a blind assertion that a magic man did it "explain" anything? Oh, that's right, it doesn't, it's nothing more than the elevation of ignorance to a metaphysic.

Andrew4Handel wrote:If you come across an new object somewhere you don't immediately try and think of ways that it could have appeared from nothing

The universe is hardly a 'new object'. It's 13.6 billion years old. Plus, I suggest you go and learn something about virtual particles, which enjoy empirical support via the Casimir Effect.

Andrew4Handel wrote:you tend to look for causal and conceptual explanations for its existence.

That is true when we are dealing with an entity that bears the hallmarks of having been the product of transformation of existing matter and energy. The problem with the observable universe, is that we don't have observational data covering any matter or energy that might have existed before the first Planck Second. Of course, some comsological physicists are seeking to address that little problem, but the last time I presented the relevant scientific papers to you, your response was to cut and paste a piece from Wikipedia, as part of the usual practice of treating science as a branch of apologetics. The fact that scientists are seeking to find out if the test presented in those papers yields the predicted result should be telling you something important here.

Andrew4Handel wrote:And that is what science usually does for everything else . It looks for causal and conceptual explanations.

Apparently you never sat in any class devoted to quantum mechanics. Please provide us all with the relevant quantum operators for vacuum fluctuations. You'll make a lot of physicists very happy if you come up with them.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I think the universes existence does require an meaningful causal explanation gods or no gods.

Funny how, when I presented scientific papers offering one such explanation, your response was to play apologetics with the science, in order to keep a gap open for a magic man at all costs.

Andrew4Handel wrote:This universe from nothing strategy seems purely reactionary

Bollocks. How many times do you need to be told, that modern cosmological physics simply regards your magic man as an irrelevance? As does all of science, for that matter.

Andrew4Handel wrote:and makes atheism

Ahem, this duplicitous conflation of atheism with cosmological physics, is precisely that - duplicitous. Not least, because it was YOU who earlier in your posting career, complained about the very conflation of science with atheism that you are now erecting.

Andrew4Handel wrote:into something more than a non belief but a world view with a set of beliefs and motives.

Bollocks. Once again, do learn to differentiate between atheism and cosmological physics.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I have said before that when I left religion and questioned my childhood religious narrative I dodn't find new answers around me but was just sorely puzzled by my own existence and had a real existential crisis wondering why anything existed at all and why it would come to exist without a creator.

Your weaknesses don't dictate how reality behaves. Learn this lesson quickly.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I realised logically that removing the creator story left no motive for existence. It kind of made existence lifeless.... Staring at a senseless impersonal universe is like staring into a void..

A consequence of your never having bothered to learn any of the actual science. Those of us who have, regard the emergence of an entire universe via testable natural processes as marvellous to behold. Marvellous enough to render invisible magic men superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Andrew4Handel wrote:now I realise that this sense probably comes from an all nothing dichotomy created by fundamentalism which seeks to impose excessive order on reality.

No, it comes from you never having bothered to learn any real science.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote: Are there errors in the physics Krauss uses? If so, please share them with us rather than trying to discredit the idea by blindly asserting there is some kind of agenda behind particle physics..

Since when have Physicists had access to the entirity of the universe and reality?

They have access to far more of it than mythology does. This might have something to do with the fact that physics involves paying attention to reality, instead of making shit up and then pretending that reality conforms to said made up shit. Which is where religion went wrong.

Andrew4Handel wrote:If you can't see the arrogance in postulated theories of everything then you really need to get and arrogantbullshitometer.

Oh, how "arrogant" of physicists to postulate testable natural mechanisms, and then set about finding ways of testing their ideas, as opposed to the approach taken by religion, which consists of declaring by fiat that the universe conforms to the made up shit contained in mythology. I know which approach I and many here consider to be more arrogant.

Andrew4Handel wrote:If a particle can come from nowhere that law allow for anything to come from nowhere..It makes the fabric of reality based on incomprehensible comings and goings...and non causality.

Virtual particles are an observed fact. See the Casimir Effect. The universe isn't required to genuflect before your ignorance, inability to comprehend difficult concepts, or wishful thinking.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I wouldn't base my theory of the entirity of existence on the behaviour of invisible particles.

Those "invisible particles" are an observational reality. Suck on it.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Can you imagine a heart surgeon relying on that level of explanation?

As opposed to relying upon "magic man did it"?

Andrew4Handel wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:A particularly damning testimony on the psychological damages of a religion that despises the physical world. It divorces you from the natural world to the point that it makes one emotionally and psychologically impotent without the help of a mythological super intervention.

What my upbringing did was make me have deep questions about reality from an early age. I can't imagine someone in a secular household ever has to question reality as much as when you are reminded about deep questions about reality every day during religious indoctrination.

And that's precisely the problem. Namely, indoctrination. When, on the other hand, you're introduced to a view that says "if you want to know something, pay attention to what reality is telling you, and go and perform the experiments", then you are naturally brought to the point where you don't regard things as "mystical" just because you don't understand them right here and now. You tell yourself that all you need to do is keep paying attention to genuine sources of information, and eventually, you'll find out. The observable universe is the greatest teacher you can have, and if you fail to listen to it, it's your loss.

Andrew4Handel wrote:When I thought about God as a child I wondered where he came from and how infinity worked. At what stage infinity did God create the world? So I was thinking about the problematic paradoxes of infinity quite early on.

I, on the other hand, was learning how mathematicians placed the concept of infinity on a rigorous footing. That's the essential difference.

Andrew4Handel wrote:So my religious background whilst destructive and making me deeply unhappy did not close my mind. I went to a secular school and the people there weren'tn interested in big issues about reality or avidily reading Dawkins and physics textbooks.

What a lamentable schooling you had in that case. When I was at school, the moment news broke about the emergence of new ideas in particle physics, I and my classmates were queueing up to read all about it in the library copy of New Scientist. This was about the time when quantum chromodynamics put in its first appearance.

Andrew4Handel wrote:On top of that I was badly bullied at school by non religious people which has affected my whole life and well being and gave me a bad impression of the secular world.

I had my fair share of unwelcome attention as well. I knucked down and got on with the business of learning, because I knew it constituted an escape.

Andrew4Handel wrote:There are actually plenty of non religious and atheist nihilist who fail to see meaning in reality. My 5 siblings and several cousins that went to the same church never got to the stage I did.

Actually, I don't regard reality as having any "intrinsic" meaning, and certainly not one imposed by fait by some invisible magic man. Instead, I decide what meaning the universe has for me. Even though I don't necessarily subscribe to existentialist thinking, I'd probably make a very good existentialist.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I definitely would have preferred to have been born into a happy secular home but i fear I would have developed complacency..

What a sad little caricature of secular living you paint. I'll now demonstrate why it's a sad little caricature. Oh, hang on, I already did this in a previous post, namely this one, which I posted in response to this tedious outing of yours. Let's re-visit the relevant part, shall we?

I had access, as a child, to a publication known as The Children's Encyclopaedia, edited by one Arthur Mee. Even back when I was a child, large parts of it were woefully out of date, though I didn't know this at six years of age, as I spent happy hours poring over its pages in my bedroom. For those unfamiliar with this work, it was compiled before 1945, and some editions quite possibly date back to the end of World War I. Moreover, anyone picking it up now will experience more than a hint of embarrassment when leafing through its pages, because they are absolutely redolent with the air of complacent imperial smugness and self-satisfaction that marked the late Victorian and early Edwardian eras - there's a gung-ho, jingoistic Boy's Own Paper attitude pervading the entire work, which manifestly sets out to impress the view that being English constitutes the apotheosis of progress, and that the British Empire was somehow pre-ordained to rule half the world, our own version of 'manifest destiny' if you like. However, if one puts aside this fault, and concentrates on the substantive knowledge, it's still an impressive work, all the more so because it contains a good body of substantive knowledge despite the aforementioned handicaps. The sections on science and natural history are still well worth reading, even though there is a charmingly naive tendency to anthropomorphise the world of living organisms, even down to bacteria, though since this was aimed at children, perhaps this can be forgiven.

However, what makes this work apposite for me to recall here is this. The work is divided into ten volumes, with each volume has eighteen sections, some covering science, some covering geography and world history, some devoted to literature and art. Section 17 is devoted to religion, specifically, Christianity, which is hardly surprising in a work whose ethos consists of instilling "God, King and Country" into its readers, though the continued insistence upon this after World War I suggests strongly that the editor was woefully politically complacent.

Now, I would happily curl up on my bed, leafing through all the exciting pages on science and natural history, and one of the beauties of that encyclopaedia, was that it encouraged its readers to go out and look for these wonders themselves wherever possible. The science and natural history sections encouraged an empirical outlook, they encouraged the readers of this work to go out and see that the various living organisms being described were indeed out there and behaved as described, they encouraged the readers to go and look at the stars and see that they were indeed as described, and that views through a telescope revealed a whole host of other wonders denied to the naked eye. In short, the message was "we're telling you about this, but go and see for yourself that we're telling you the truth".

Turn to the religion section, on the other hand, and it is a sorry contrast. One is simply expected to accept assertion after assertion, including assertions from the Bible that are manifestly at variance with the scientific knowledge, even of that vintage, contained in the other sections. As a consequence, even at six years of age, I looked at the religion sections of that encyclopaedia with, and this is not too strong a word, disgust. It is obvious to me now that this was exactly the reverse of the editor's intention, but, by making religion seem utterly boring and tedious in comparison to the wonders of the natural world, which by comparison dazzled with the brilliance of an exquisitely cut diamond, Mee succeeded, in my case at least, in destroying any chance whatsoever that I would regard the Bible as anything other than a sad collection of bad stories, and ensuring that I would regard the whole business of religion as a sort of collective madness on the part of those who believed.

As a consequence, I wondered for years how on Earth ideas like this were not discarded in the same way as the more florid outpourings of alchemists, such as the phlogiston theory that was eventually tossed into the bin by Lavoisier. How I wish I had arrived at the analysis of doctrine centred world views 25 years earlier! If only those words by Storm Jameson, in the preface to The Diary of Anne Frank, had crossed my eyes properly before they did. Oh, I read them as part of my study of that famous book many years ago, but it was only more recently, upon revisiting that book after having dealt with a particularly duplicitous creationist over at RDF, that the light bulb went on over the head, and the pernicious nature of doctrine exploded before me with a hitherto unimagined clarity. This, combined with a proper explanation of how supernaturalism arose, couched in terms of our manifest tendency, as beings possessing intent, to project that intent upon our surroundings, fell into place as a coherent whole far too late as far as I am concerned, and even though I had always had a serious suspicion of enforced conformity right from my early teenage years, it took rather longer than it should for the jigsaw to be completed to my satisfaction. But, the journey that led to this began, ironically, by reading a work that was intended to turn its readers into good, upright, believing Anglican Englishmen, which in my case was a serendipitous happenstance that was most certainly the polar opposite of the editor's desires.

Now, I've already related this to you once, and, surprise, surprise, you haven't learned a single thing from the first time I told you this back in July 2011. But then you never DO learn anything from the free education you're receiving here, do you? You simply skip past the parts of posts that are inconvenient for you to read, the parts that flush your presuppositions and wishful thinking down the toilet, and then regurgitate the same apologetic excrement later on, as if said apologetic excrement had never been subject to critique. It's why your posts are treated with the scorn and derision that they are, because the tiresome regurgitation of the same previously destroyed made up shit, in the pretence that it was never previously destroyed, earns scorn and derision in an honest discoursive environment. You might want to reflect upon this. particularly in the light of the fact that I had to spell out explicitly in this post how many times I had schooled you on your continued erection of canards relating to the deliberate and wilful omission of testable natural processes from consideration of scientific questions. Which means that this, my latest post addressing your canards, constitutes the FIFTEENTH TIME I have educated you about this. With this sort of track record, is it any wonder that your posts elicit groans of contempt whenever they appear? Because we know you're going to serve up the same old discoursive shit sandwiches that we threw back at you previously. You never present anything else.

And speaking of yet more discoursive shit sandwiches, here we fucking go again ...

Andrew4Handel wrote:

LarianLeQuella wrote:Stop right there. Your premise is already incorrect, and a misrepresentation of what is actually being said. It's subtle, and probably well beyond the grasp of the layperson.

I can see no reason for physicist to postulate that particles or the rest of reality come from nowhere.

Oh, and you know better than the world's most educated physicists, now? Please, do tell us all why you deserve Hawking's job again. Please point to the peer reviewed research you've conducted in the field, that sets you up as a candidate for a Nobel Prize. Otherwise, learn once and for all that all you have is opinion here, not substantive fact.

Andrew4Handel wrote:As far as i can tell the majority of them don't believe this.

Once again, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant in physics. I've schooled you on this repeatedly as well.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Where is Lawrence Krausses noble prize since he has made this startling discovery about reality?

I'll tell you when he picks one up. Namely, when he presents a test of his ideas that can be performed, and upon the execution of that test, his predictions about the outcome are supported by reality. When that happens, he gets the shiny gold medal. That's how it's done. Though your response when I presented scientific papers by two other physicists in the field, providing such an empirical test, was to play duplicitous apologetics with the science.

Andrew4Handel wrote:It is clear from his videos that his theorising is motivated by proving his own theory that a universe can come from nowhere formulated in defiance of the potential religious implications of the universes mysterious appearance.

Bollocks. Once again, go and learn some fucking physics, and stop wasting your time with apologetics fabrications and hot air.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Dudely wrote:The fabric of space creates particles out of nothin..

What is the fabric of space?

It's the manifold within which matter is embedded. In case you're wondering, the term 'manifold' has a precise mathematical definition.

Andrew4Handel wrote:The fabric of space doesn't sound like nothing to me.

To quote the physicist Michio Kaku, "to a physicist, 'nothing' simply means 'an absence of stuff' ".

Andrew4Handel wrote:If physicists "see" particles appearing as if from nothing that doesn't prove that they are appearing from nothing but rather exposes the limit of human and physicist perception.

Once again, please do provide the relevant quantum operators for vacuum fluctuations, and a rigorous causal basis for the emergence of those operators. When you do, we'll celebrate your Nobel Prize.

Andrew4Handel wrote:However why should a particle be physically able to appear from nothing and not anything else such as a grand piano?

Wait long enough, and the appropriate wave function could emerge. The problem here is that the probability amplitude is extremely small, and so you'll have to wait rather a long time.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I love your complete and utter lack of skepticism.

I, on the other hand, do not love your manifest discoursive duplicity.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Please stop making such wild presuppositions. Just because you aren´t raised religiously does not mean you don´t wonder about the world, reality and the point of it all..

I said "I can't imagine someone in a secular household ever has to question reality as much as when you are reminded about deep questions about reality every day during religious indoctrination"

See my above exposition about my own childhood learning process, which flushes your presuppositions down the toilet.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I didn't say secular people never have deep questions about reality I was pointing out how a strict religious upbringing with constant religious messages makes you think about deep issues in reality on a regular basis (depending on inclinations and religious sect).

Correction, it instils a pretence to this effect. Your woefully inadequate answers to numerous points put to you here demonstrates this in spades.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I was responding directly to this post my ElDiablo

"It divorces you from the natural world to the point that it makes one emotionally and psychologically impotent without the help of a mythological super intervention."

He was claiming that my upbringing divorced me from the natural world.

Well thus far, you've posted numerous canards about science, and scientific ideas, that demonstrate a woeful inability to connect to reality.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I am pointing out that it actually made me think about reality in more depth than if these issues weren't raised

No, it merely provided you with the pretence that you were doing this. As your continued preference for apologetics over substantive reasoning demonstrates all too clearly.

Andrew4Handel wrote:A similar example is that if you have a relative with bowel cancer you are likely to end up knowing a bit more about bowel cancer related issues than someone not in this situation.

Except that we have evidence for the existence of bowel cancer. Where's the evidence for Mr Invisible Magic Man again?

Andrew4Handel wrote:Scientist can't see consciousness therefore it must not exist or must come from nothing blahhh

Oh look, when in doubt, resort to caricature. A sure sign that you're swimming out of your discoursive depth.

Andrew4Handel wrote:The majority of Physicists have not come to the same conclusion as Lawrence Krauss.

Taken a poll, have you?

Andrew4Handel wrote:Therefore his model of a universe from "nothing" is not the primary or automatic conclusion brought to by physics.

Oh, I'll be the first to admit that there are several competing hypotheses extant, not least because I've bothered to read the scientific papers. But that's the whole fucking point, Andrew, namely, presenting one's ideas in a public arena, so that they can be scutinised by others with the relevant expertise, to determine whether or not he's on to something. I personally happen to think that the front runner in the race comes from Steinhardt and Turok, not least because they've already presented an empirical test that we can perform. Their work stands or falls on that test. If the test results don't match their predictions, it's back to the drawing board for them. If the test results do match their predictions, they pick up a shiny gold medal from some nice Swedish gentlemen. But nobody is going to pick up one of those medals for simply asserting "Magic Man did it".

Andrew4Handel wrote:However there is also Biology and chemistry which are not physics and consciousness which is not explained by current models of physics.

I seem to remember giving you some schooling on neuroscience over this ...

Andrew4Handel wrote:Feel free to to base your whole world view around physics (a physics fudge) though if that is what is supporting your atheism.

As opposed to the biggest fudge of all - "Magic Man did it".

Andrew4Handel wrote:The question is not why did something come from nothing it is why does something exist at all. Which is different and means the question of what nothing is is a side issue (sideshow).

Oh, and you think "Magic Man did it" constitutes an answer?

Andrew4Handel wrote:If you are interested in where the universe came from and are only willing to consider arguments from physics then you already more than halfway to being completely biased.

Bollocks. It's known as choosing the option that has been demonstrated to be reliable in the past. Unless of course you think that fifteen decimal places of accord with observational reality doesn't count as reliable.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I don't reject things without having considered the notion of an alternative or any competing theories and objections in a spirit of openminded seriouisness.

Oh dear, not THIS apologetic horseshit AGAIN ...

Andrew, being open minded does NOT mean "accept uncritically whatever bullshit assertions you are fed". It means being willing to revise ideas when EVIDENCE tells us to revise those ideas. "Magic Man did it" has ZERO evidence in support of it. On the other hand, physicists have provided evidence for their past postulates by the fucking supertanker load. Much of your affluent, famine-free, disease-free life surrounded by expensive electronic toys, is a testament to that success on the part of physicists, who led the way teaching us how to pay attention to reality, and bestowed this gift upon the other sciences. Without some of these people, we'd still be pretending that we can make pandemic diseases go away by kissing the arse of an invisible magic man, like we did in 1348, and we all saw how well that worked - or rather, didn't.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Bandying about words like magic man and sky fairy indicates you haven't taken the debate seriously.

No, it's an indication of how supernaturalist assertions have FAILED to enjoy an atom of real evidential support, yet we keep being bored shitless by continued insistence on the part of mythology fetishists, that we should treat their fantasies about invisible magic entities as fact. It's precisely because we treat the subject seriously, that we won't be fobbed off with made up shit. Now learn this fucking lesson, will you?

Andrew4Handel wrote:You haven't considered alternative intellectual and philisophical paradigms

Exactly how is "Magic Man did it" an "intellectual" paradigm, once more? Exactly what is "intellectual" about treating blind mythological assertions as fact, without a shred of evidence supporting said assertions?

Andrew4Handel wrote:as discussed as far back as to the ancients with their eternally pertinent questions.

Oh, right, so you want us to treat the pre-scientific wibblings of people who knew nothing about the entities and phenomena alighted upon by modern science, as being on an equal footing with that modern science. You must think everyone here is so fucking gullible, if you want to run that idea here. Let me remind you, just in case you hadn't worked this out, that in the case of one mythology and its authors, we're dealing with a group of backward, piss-stained Middle Eastern nomads, who thought you could change the genomes of living organisms wholesale, simply by having the parent organisms shag alongside coloured sticks, and who couldn't count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses. If you want us to treat the drivel these people cobbled together, as being on the same intellectual level as quantum electrodynamics, then allow me to point and laugh.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

twistor59 wrote:

Andrew4Handel wrote:The majority of Physicists have not come to the same conclusion as Lawrence Krauss. Therefore his model of a universe from "nothing" is not the primary or automatic conclusion brought to by physics.

Yes they have and yes it is the consensus.

Show me evidence that this is the overriding opinion (backed up with facts)?

Oh look, all of a sudden, Andrew wants evidence. Yet when asked to provide evidence for his assertions, fobs us off with more made up shit and hot air. There's a word for this discoursive practice, beginning with the letter "H".

Andrew4Handel wrote:Even if it were it would be highly implausible.

Oh, and you know enough physics to be able to tell this to Krauss's face, do you?

Andrew4Handel wrote:As I have said I find it implausible that phsyicists have access to the entirety of the universe in the first place.

Oh, and people who prefer mythology do have access to the entirety of the universe? Please, pull the other one, it's got fucking bells on. Coloured sticks, anyone?

Andrew4Handel wrote:Big bang is a theory which isn't universally believed.

Once again, when one has evidence to support a collection of postulates, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Andrew4Handel wrote:http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Oh look, an out of date letter. Last time I checked, the cosmological redshift of galaxies constituted the observational remnant of the inflationary era. As for dark matter, oh look, here is a scientific paper that discusses observational evidence for dark matter:

Non-Baryonic Dark Matter: Observational Evidence And Detection Methods by Lars Bergström, Reports on Progress in Physics, 63(5): 793-851 (May 2000)

Oh look, that paper was published four years before the "letter" you linked to above. Looks like some people haven't been paying attention to the actual physics literature!

Let's see what Bergstrüm has to say, shall we?

Bergström, 2000 wrote:The evidence for the existence of dark matter in the universe is reviewed. A general picture emerges, where both baryonic and non-baryonic dark matter is needed to explain current observations. In particular, a wealth of observational information points to the existence of a non-baryonic component, contributing between around 20 and 40% of the critical mass density needed to make the universe geometrically flat on large scales. In addition, an even larger contribution from vacuum energy (or cosmological constant) is indicated by recent observations. To the theoretically favoured particle candidates for non-baryonic dark matter belong axions, supersymmetric particles, and of less importance, massive neutrinos. The theoretical foundation and experimental situation for each of these is reviewed. Direct and indirect methods for detection of supersymmetric dark matter are described in some detail. Present experiments are just reaching the required sensitivity to discover or rule out some of these candidates, and major improvements are planned over the coming years.

So even twelve years ago, physicists were obtaining observational evidence for dark matter.

This is what happens when you simply play apologetics with the science, Andrew, instead of learning about it.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Raises inpenetrable questions.. (what can the universe expand into etc

And with this statement, you have just demonstrated how parlous your knowledge is, of the science you purport to be in a position to criticise. Go here and read my handy little guide to space-time expansion. While you're at it, here is a nice scientific paper clearing up certain misconceptions.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I really do think peoples skepticism about cosmology is at an all time low...

So says the person whose response to the last scientific papers I presented was to play apologetics with the science, in order to prop up his wishful thinking.

Andrew4Handel wrote:And also I doubt people on here have a sufficient grasp of physics for it to form a plausible basis for their atheism.

Oh, look, it's pot, kettle, black time!!!!

This from the individual who claims to be able to reject the work of a leading physicist, on the basis of zero substantive knowledge of the actual physics.

Andrew4Handel wrote:A physical law that proved something could come from nothing would not only be coherent but not rule out anything appearing from anywhere for no reason.

Word salad.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Now you can just throw physics books at non atheists heads and claim that if only they understood degree level physics they would be an atheist..I cry a big bollocks...

Those of us who did bother to understand the subject matter are looking at your above assertion with complete and utter contempt. Well deserved contempt, I might add. You really are scraping the barrel here.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Paul wrote:Much like some people claim that if only atheists understood philosophy to degree level then they wouldn't be atheists?

(There was a prat called Mike_Cullen on RDF who even had something like that in his signature)

I don't think you need to understand philosophy you just have to understand the idea that a non physics based criticism can be made on grounds of logic.

Oh, this is another of your "areas of expertise", is it? Please, fucking bring it on.

Andrew4Handel wrote:If physicists define their own notion of nothingness then it is not going to be accessible to the lay person

Fucking diddums. REALITY is not obliged to pander to the lowest common denominator. The mere fact that we have theories such as general relativity and quantum electrodynamics in place, theories which, I remind you, are in accord with observational reality to fifteen decimal places, should be telling you this. Do please point to the piece of mythology or apologetics enjoying the same level of support.

Andrew4Handel wrote:and will be divorced from any other concepts of nothingness and casusality in academia and common sense.

So you think we should abandon all rigorous and precise work, just because it's too hard for some people to understand?

Andrew4Handel wrote:I often refer to consciousness here because if we want to base an ultimate state of reality on a physics copnception then everything has to bee reducible to physics and physics laws and consciousness has not yet being at all conceptualised or explained in itself let alone reduced to physics and yet that is our own access to a reality through consciousness.

Please re-write this word salad in conprehensible English. You just killed my Babel Fish.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Physicists that maybe claiming their theories are a "theory of everything" have to explain why these gaps in kowledge appear considering what is supposed to be the overarching nature of their eexplanation.

Except that those so-called "gaps" are being filled. Something that never happens with mythology.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Where is Krausses theory of consciousness?

Who fucking cares? What matters is whether his physics is correct, and supported by observational reality. Learn this lesson, will you?

Andrew4Handel wrote:And subjects such as consciousness are currently explored in a wide range of disciplines including philosophy.

Oh please, we've seen your version of "philosophy" - namely, let's make shit up, and pretend that the universe and its contents magically rearranges to conform thereto. Such as the bullshit you came up with about physical entities and phenomena being an illusion created by mind, which I flushed down the toilet with ease, simply by noting that if your amateurish little metaphysical fantasy was correct, it would enable us to edit the past.

Andrew4Handel wrote:And one thing I know for a fact is that an atheist can't claim knowledge of how consciousness is possible

No you don't, you just assert this, like you assert almost everything in your posts. Plus, those of us who pay attention to the relevant neuroscience research, are likely to have a damn sight better understanding, than someone who thinks a magic man was responsible.

Andrew4Handel wrote:and can't be basing their world view on a complete knowledge of fundamental aspects of reality.

Oh, and since when did this appear in mythology? In case you need reminding, Andrew, modern science has alighted upon entities and phenomena, that the authors of sad little collections of fairy tales about invisible magic men, were incapable of even fantasising about. The limited, parochial, unimaginative fabrications of pre-scientific humans look woeful, alongside the exotica that science has not only alighted upon, but made subject to precise quantitative frameworks of understanding. Please, take the pathetic little Luddite position you are advocating here, and stick it where the sun does't shine.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Panderos wrote:What is your method for establishing which theories are right and which are not?

Theories about what?

We go through reality using heuristics we don't test the validity of all our beliefs.

We'd be well and truly fucked if science did this. Oh, wait, we were well and truly fucked in 1348, when this approach was applied in practice.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I accept the limitations of my knowledge.

Oh, please, spare us the posturing! You assert earlier in this thread, that you're in a position to tell a physicist of Krauss' stature that his ideas are "implausible", and now post this?

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Xeno wrote:Why is "a sufficient grasp of physics" necessary to recognise there is no evidence nor reason for gods?

.

Dawkins said that if there wasn't a theory of evolution then it would be stupid not to think things in nature weren't designed.

Trouble is, now that there IS a theory of evolution, and one which is in accord with observed reality, it's stupid to think that a magic man conjured everything into existence with a wave of his magic todger. But you try telling creationists this.

Andrew4Handel wrote:So Dawkins answers you question for you.

I wonder what apologetic horseshit is about to be peddled here ...

Andrew4Handel wrote:When you look at nature it bears the hallmarks of being designed or being to complicated, implausible and efficient to be designed.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve laughs at your above assertion. So do several species of Carabid beetle, which, wait for it, have fully functional wings, that would enable the insects in question to fly if they were deployed, but which are rendered useless because the elytra of these species are fused shut. An example is provided by Holcaspis oedicnema, a photo of which appears below:



An example of a Carabid with fused elytra that has lost its hindwings completely (indicating that the lineage in question has possessed fused elytra for a long period of time) is provided by Damaster blaptoides. Here's a nice photo of this species:



Numerous other Carabid taxa are listed as possessing fused elytra, such as a number of New Zealand taxa covered in this work:

Carabidae (Insecta : Coleoptera): synopsis of supraspecific taxa by A. Larochelle & M.-C. Larivière, Fauna of New Zealand 60, 188 pages. (ISSN 0111-5383; no. 60). ISBN 978-0-478-09394-0 (21 November 2007)

Other species include Australian members of the Genera Cerotalis and Carenum, as cited in this paper:

Respiratory Patterns And Metabolism In Tenebrionid And Carabid Beetles From The Simpson Desert, Australia by Frances D. Duncan and Christopher R. Dickman, Oecologica, 129(4): 509-517 (August 2001)

This paper:

A Review Of The Species Of Scarites (Antilliscaris) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) With Notes On Their Morphology And Evolution by T. F. Hlavac, Psyche, 76(1): 1-17 (March 1969) [Full paper downloadable from here]

describes members of this Genus as having fused elytra also. From that paper, we have:

Hlavac, 1969 wrote:Scarites subgenus Antilliscaris Banninger 1949, p. 136

Diagnosis : head : large, 37-59% of length of elytra . Mandibles : median carnassal regions large, basal molar area small with complex of interdigitating cusps, dorsal surface smooth. Eyes : small, height 30-50% of height of mandible. Antennae : long to very long for a Scarites, segment 4 similar to apical segments, dorsal and ventral setose areas with rough microsculpture and pair of narrow lateral glabrous regions without setae, sides flattened but not as distinctly as in segments 5-11. Segment 3 circular in cross section with apical ring of setae as well as a number on the apical 2/3 of the dorsal surface and a few setae, including some very large ones on the ventral surface ( Fig . 13 ). Frontal plate grooved. Pterothorax : metasternum and metepisternum short, L/W of episternum 0.87-1.3, elytra fused together and to mesanotum, wings reduced, shorter than metanotum in mutchleri. Lateral edge of mesotibia with one large spine. Metepimeron : slender, pleural suture very faint externally ; epimeron-elytra interlocking mechanism absent.

I've since learned that fused elytra are also present in some Tebrenionid beetles as well, as well as some species belonging to the Curculionidae. There is also the Genus Acmaeodera (Family Buprestidae) which has fused elytra, and an entire Family, the Blapsidae, which has fused elytra. Likewise, there is the Genus Cephennium (Family Scydmaenidae), with fused elytra and reduced (but not absent) hindwings (one species, Cephennium gallicum, is a part of the UK fauna).

Oh, and according to this document, we have the following:

Even though many species occur in moist habitats, an amphibious way of live is reported in only very few cases (e. g., Carabus variolosus at small streams in Fagus forests, C. clathratus and some other Carabus species in swamps; Sturani 1962; Cicindelinae in inundation forests; Adis & Messner 1997; Rawlinsius in shallow regions of rapid mountain streams; Davidson & Ball 1998). A large percentage of species in tropical rain forests and subtropical montane forests, and few species in temperate regions are arboreal and resting under leaves or bark. The majority of carabid species is able to fly and has a great dispersal power. Some species are dimorphic regarding their wing and muscle development; usually the minority of individuals is wingless (e. g., most Carabus, Anthiini). Even species exclusively moving on the ground have an enormous dispersal power; migrations of 77 m per night and running speeds of 0.16 mls were estimated in Carabus species (Thiele 1977). Carabid beetles show a circadian rhythm and outside the tropical regions also an annual rhythm. The majority of species is nocturnal; some species change their activity dependent from climate or season but some taxa are active during day light (e. g., Cicindelini). The annual rhythm controls the reproductive period; different mechanisms of diapause are described for species of the temperate and subtropical regions (Paarmann 1979). During inactive periods in winter quarters or hiding places during day time, aggregations of several hundred specimens are possible.

So, we have a range of Carabid beetles, ranging from those lacking fused elytra and fully developed hindwings, plus a good flight capability, through Carabids with fused elytra but fully developed hindwings, Carabids with fused elytra and reduced hindwings, to a few Carabids with fused elytra and absent hindwings. Now this diversity makes eminent sense when regarded in the light of evolution, and I suspect that an analysis of the relevant phylogeny would be instructive here (I'll have to buttonhole my tame Carabid expert on the phylogeny and see if it matches my guesses here). On the other hand, this lot makes NO sense whatsoever as the purported product of some "intelligent designer" (read: invisible magic man from Middle Eastern mythology), unless that "intelligent designer" is a complete fuckwit. So please, do tell me what dickhead would "design" the above.

Andrew4Handel wrote:So on first looking at reality the first thought that (logically) springs to ones mind is not that it is lacking in purpose and appeared out of nowhere for no reason.

Once again, I have TOLD YOU REPEATEDLY about the "nowhere and for no reason" apologetic bullshit you keep peddling. Once again, scientists regard TESTABLE NATURAL PROCESSES as being responsible. When are you going to LEARN this lesson, Andrew, and STOP peddling dishonest apologetic faeces? This now makes the SIXTEENTH TIME I have had to tell you this. The mere fact that I had to tell you more than once, let alone SIXTEEN TIMES, testifies to the fact that you are not here to learn, and not here to engage in proper discourse.

Andrew4Handel wrote:The hypothesis that reality might be created (by a deity or something else) arrives based on a psychological need for explanation

Some of us have grown up, and no longer need comfort blankets.

Andrew4Handel wrote:and or logic and causality also arguably based on the logical nature of cognitive systems.

Oh, we know how ideas such as invisible magic men come about, Andrew. What happened, was that Palaeolithic humans projected their own capacity for intent upon their surroundings. They erected a comparison between various natural phenomena, and the results of their own actions, and having erected this comparison, decided on the basis thereof that natural phenomena were the work of something like themselves, only a lot bigger, and invisible. But humans have acquired so much knowledge since then, that persisting with this facile notion is absurd, and becomes more so with each new peer reviewed paper.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Claiming the universe appeared from nothing is highly suspect but seems designed solely for the consumption of atheists.

Please, stop projecting the supernaturalist modus operandi onto us, Andrew, because it's manifestly inapplicable. We don't start with doctrinal presuppositions. We leave that to mythology fetishists.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I prefer to be an agnostic and accept my limitations.

Oh please, this from someone who claims to be in a position to tell Krauss his ideas are "implausible", despite having studied none of the relevant physics.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I am contesting the ideas from atheists that there is no need for a deity like creator explanation because I don't accept their grounds for holding these beliefs

It isn't a matter of "belief", Andrew. We have evidence that your invisible magic man is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, with respect to vast classes of real world observational phenomena. Every peer reviewed paper in existence supports this. Unless of course you can point to one that says a magic man is needed. Before you do, however, don't try fobbing us off with some pretend piece of trash from a creationist website, otherwise we'll treat your posts with even more scorn and derision.

Andrew4Handel wrote:not to because i want to prove that there is a god or gods.

Oh please, spare us this entirely synthetic posturing. Your desperation to shoe-horn a magic man into the tiniest of gaps is so manifestly obvious, it'll be detectable by civilisations in galaxies millions of light years away.

Andrew4Handel wrote:To be an atheist I thought one surely does not have to claim completely knowledge of reality and rule out a creator altogether?

And since when does this level of infantile presupposition qualify for the word "thought"? Please, come back when you have something other to bring here than the usual tiresome canards.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I thought atheism was disbelief based on a current lack of evidence.

Actually, it's a refusal to treat unsupported blind supernaturalist assertion as fact. Learn this.

Andrew4Handel wrote:However on the evidence issue I don't think we can rule out logically the universe or realioty itself as evidence for a deity

Once again, do tell me what dickhead of a "deity" would "design" those Carabid beetles I cited above?

Andrew4Handel wrote:which is precisely why I am an agnostic.

Actually, if you were a real agnostic, you would regard the entire question as beyond our remit to answer. Instead, you're pushing the same tired old supernaturalist apologetic bullshit we see all the time from the likes of creationists. Your pretence at "agnosticism" is manifestly that - a pretence.

Andrew4Handel wrote:And I have problem with atheists promoting this world view of nothingness nihilist viewpoint with out substantial support.

Yawn, yawn, yawn ... caricature time again!!!!

I seem to recall psuhing your nose into a little exposition of mine that is the very antithesis of nihilism some time ago. But please, don't let this basic fact stop you from peddling more of this shit, will you?

Andrew4Handel wrote:It seems here that to be an atheist (authentic atheist) one has to agree with common (as muck) arguments used by atheist rather than reach atheithism based on ones own rationale.

I've already told you how I figured out supernaturalism was a crock of shit at about the age of 8. I don't recall seeing anyone else present this before me. So, I'll conclude that your above statement is more made up shit from you, shall I?

Andrew4Handel wrote:that is why atheism gets targetted as a belief system..

Bollocks. It's targeted as a "belief system" because supernaturalists prefer duplicitous apologetic fabrications to fact. The mere fact that I have had to tell you SIXTEEN TIMES that your caricatures of science ARE caricatures, with respect to your "nothing and no reason" bullshit and related canards, demonstrates this in spades.

Right, I think this covers all the bases. Cue duplicitous apologetic reply in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Andrew4Handel wrote:The majority of Physicists have not come to the same conclusion as Lawrence Krauss. Therefore his model of a universe from "nothing" is not the primary or automatic conclusion brought to by physics.

Well, whoever said that it was, you sure got 'em!

Andrew4Handel wrote:However there is also Biology and chemistry which are not physics and consciousness which is not explained by current models of physics.

Is your point that physics doesn't explain everything? If so, I think you really got anyone who does think that.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Feel free to to base your whole world view around physics (a physics fudge) though if that is what is supporting your atheism.

How can you base a world view on physics alone? You're the one saying we should feel free to, so I expect you have a notion of how we might go about it. It's a new idea to me, seems foolish on the face of it. Oh wait! You're building a straw man. That expains a lot.

Andrew4Handel wrote:The question is not why did something come from nothing it is why does something exist at all. Which is different and means the question of what nothing is is a side issue (sideshow).

Your answer for why there's something instead of nothing is God, right? How do you escape the logically equivalent question that necessarily follows that answer, namely: why is there God instead of nothing?

Andrew4Handel wrote:If you are interested in where the universe came from and are only willing to consider arguments from physics then you already more than halfway to being completely biased.

We're only willing to consider arguments that can conceivably have evidence to support or demolish them. It's the only way to avoid bias we've ever been able to discover.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I don't reject things without having considered the notion of an alternative or any competing theories and objections in a spirit of openminded seriouisness.

Speculations and assertions are not alternative or competing theories, they're just things people say while ducking any expectation of supporting that what they say is true.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Bandying about words like magic man and sky fairy indicates you haven't taken the debate seriously. You haven't considered alternative intellectual and philisophical paradigms as discussed as far back as to the ancients with their eternally pertinent questions.

Those paradigms have been rejected because they never produce anything that works. For some reason, going with what works has taken us to the moon while going with alternative intellectual and philosophical paradigms have gotten us nowhere, because if what works isn't the standard, what's left is...wait for it...what doesn't work.

Andrew4Handel wrote:As I have said I find it implausible that phsyicists have access to the entirety of the universe in the first place.

I find it implausible that physicists would have to have access to the entirety of the universe in order to do meaningful work.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Big bang is a theory which isn't universally believed.

It's not a popularity contest.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I really do think peoples skepticism about cosmology is at an all time low...

That's because you think we believe cosmology with the same fervor that you believe God did it.

Andrew4Handel wrote:And also I doubt people on here have a sufficient grasp of physics for it to form a plausible basis for their atheism.

The basis for the atheism of almost every atheist I've ever met is that the people asserting there is a God not only can't provide convincing evidence it exists, they can't agree on what it is.

Andrew4Handel wrote:A physical law that proved something could come from nothing would not only be coherent but not rule out anything appearing from anywhere for no reason.

I'm going to assume you meant 'incoherent'. Mere assertion and dismissed as such, and not a very coherent sentence itself.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Now you can just throw physics books at non atheists heads and claim that if only they understood degree level physics they would be an atheist..I cry a big bollocks...

Another straw man. What is it about our position that makes you so want it to be something else? Of course you can be a theist with degree level physics. Some are. Frankly, Krauss's hypothesis doesn't rule out God, it just means that you don't have to resort to God to explain how the universe may have begun. Isn't your God supposed to operate in mysterious ways and not leave its fingerprints on anything so our free will won't be compromised by knowledge of its existence? It would be just like a God like that to create a universe in such a way that it looks like it could happen without divine intervention. I don't see any good reason to believe such a God is the case, but at least it doesn't contradict the available evidence and matches the MO we've been told about.