Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Creation of the Universe

There are a few times when I get extremely angry with religious nuts, and this is one of them.

Have you ever debated with a creationist about the origin of the Universe? They flat-out assert that because the Universe is here, it must have a creator, because all things have creators. Then if you ask them what created their god, they say something like, "That question can't be asked." or "The question has no meaning."

What's their reason? They say it's because the creator exists outside of this realm of space-time, and since it is not subject to time, it didn't have to have a beginning, and therefore didn't need to be created. And of course, this creator is their god, no other is possible, but we'll get to that in another post.

I'm actually having trouble figuring out where to start tearing down such a maddeningly ridiculous assertion. First, let's start by playing along with the creationist for a little bit. We'll call him 'person A'. Let's say that person A's god does exist and is in fact the creator of this universe. Then isn't it possible that person A's god was created by another god, worshiped by person B? And then couldn't person C come along and assert that his god created person B's god, who in turn created person A's god? This could go on forever. The point is that even if we grant person A, without having him provide any evidence at all, that his god does exist, he can't prove that it was not in turn created by another, more powerful god. But he claims to know anyways. He's just pulling crap out of his ass and trying to pass it off as facts. If one infinite god can exist, why not many?

Now we'll stop playing with the dumbass and just get to the point. The creationist usually argues that the Universe could not have existed forever, because the stars would have burned out all of their energy if it had. Fair enough. The problem with the argument is that the current evidence overwhelmingly points to a Big Bang creation. That Big Bang created both space and time. If time didn't exist before the Big Bang, then the progenitor of the universe, the singularity or whatever it was, can share the same property as this mystical god that the creationist argues for. In other words, it needed no creator. His whole argument was based on suggesting that the Universe can't exist without a creator. Unfortunately for him, by the same rules under which he assumes his creator can exist without an earlier creator, the Universe may also exist without a creator.

Now, the creationist might suggest that this doesn't prove anything, because the universe could still have been created by god. That is indeed true. We have not demonstrated that his god doesn't exist, but it isn't up to us to prove it doesn't exist, it's up to the creationist to prove that it does. We have evidence to support, if not prove, the Big Bang, including the cosmic background radiation, cosmic expansion, etc. All we have supporting the existence of god is the assertion of the creationist. There is not even a tiny shred of evidence for his god, or person B's god, person C's god, or any other gods. He has not even remotely demonstrated that a creator exists, and he has doubly failed in his attempt to prove that his god exists. Our theory has evidence to support it. The believer must support his with actual evidence that didn't come from his ass, or shut up!

If god can be infinite, why can't the Universe be infinite? Watch what happens when our friends Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron from Way of the Master are confronted with this question. Watch them fold and squirm. You can forward the video to the last half if you want to see it, it's near the end. They had no leg to stand on, and they knew it. In addition, I can't believe that the fools were unprepared for this question. Didn't they expect it? Are they that blind to the most obvious of obvious counter-arguments? Look at the awkward and painful smile on Ray's face when he asks Kirk if he'd like to tackle the question. (If you're not interested in the debate point, at least watch the video to check out this chick's knockers!)


7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I shit you not, this fine woman is now a pornstar and legal prostitute!
(Guy on the video is a prick)
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/3/Whatever-Happened-to-Kelly-From-the-RRS-680588.html
http://www.kaseygrant.com
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Rational_response_squad#Kelly_aka_Kellym78

She is so hot in the debate, I had to find out who she was.

Admin said...

I knew she was a stripper, but didn't know about the prostitution thing.

Anonymous said...

Hello, I'm back from yesterday. I've really enjoyed reading your posts, particularly the meticulous dismantling of various idiots in the comment section.

When I was a teen and started to think of such things, I came to the realization that human behavior and emotion must be merely a result of the activity of atomic interaction, rendering it essentially mindless and preordained. To my surprise, later in life I discovered The Astonishing Hypothesis by Francis Crick and that this was supposedly a novel idea. However, it feels as though free will does exist, though at the time of my realization, it shocked and scared me that free will must obviously not exist. How can free will exist when it seems as though such things would be impossible according to logic. Could organic matter contain some sort of quantum random generator? Is the premise that organic matter is different from non-biological incorrect? Or could it perhaps be "imbued" with something that we cannot yet observe, possibly as wavefronts in a yet unseen dimension?

In short how can we make the leap from matter to consciousness and free will? I have a sick feeling that organic matter is no different from inorganic, and we are under the false impression that we have a choice.

Don't get me wrong, 'god' is NOT an explanation for said phenomena. I believe that consciousness is essentially mindless (oxymoron), what we think is nothing but physics, and is thereby preordained. Free will is but a concept created by humans to put a wall around something with more dimensions than walls can surround. What I am typing now, how you feel when you read this, it is merely physics of a type we have yet to understand fully. And that scares me.

Sorry for brainstorming my rant, but I am interested in what you think about consciousness and free will.

Admin said...

"I've really enjoyed reading your posts, particularly the meticulous dismantling of various idiots in the comment section."

Ha! Exactly which ones are you referring to? Some of them have been pretty nasty. But I think I win most of them.

What do I think about consciousness and free will? That is such an incredibly heavy topic, and goes way over my head. But I'll attempt a quick and poorly-thought-out response. I suspect that you're close to being right. Can matter really arrange itself in such a way that it is no longer determinable in advance what it will do? Are the quantum fluctuations, or other unknown phenomena, enough to allow us true control over our actions?

I hope we do have free will, or I can never get mad at anybody for doing anything ever again. Wife cheats on you? Not her fault! Guy kills your kid? Not the guy's fault! They're merely the results of physics.

Anonymous said...

"Ha! Exactly which ones are you referring to? Some of them have been pretty nasty. But I think I win most of them."

The ones with "Nathan" were my favorite.

"I hope we do have free will, or I can never get mad at anybody for doing anything ever again. Wife cheats on you? Not her fault! Guy kills your kid? Not the guy's fault! They're merely the results of physics."

"I think, therefore I am" is based on the faulty premise that "I" and "think" are valid concepts to nature. More accurately it should be rephrased "Complex matter gives rise to perception of consciousness, therefore I think I can think." or "I think I can think, therefore I am nothing."

Our scope of perception is one that gives validity to concepts such as wife, kid, murder, morality. Nature, is however cold and unfeeling and could give two shits about anything other than everything.

Anonymous said...

In a way really, consciousness is a religion because it is blindly faithful that reality is in fact real, it ascribes meaning to concepts that are in nature's eyes, meaningless.

koshiir2ra said...

To answer some of the second anon's concerns, I suggest you look up the workings of the brain, specifically the cerebral cortex and limbic system, which respectively are our decision-making and emotional-processing centers.

Also, not to nitpick, but the difference between organic and inorganic matter is the presence, or lack, respectively, of carbon :)