Activity

 many militant atheists (e.g. Dawkins) make the error of trying to prove that atheism is itself not a belief yet it is for many.

The fact that many people think it is a belief system, doesn’t make it one.

As we’ve discussed before there is no scientific theory that can explain the origin of the universe, this is crystal clear. If you continue to talk like that then your credibility as a scientific thinker is undermined.

So too then is every cosmologist, everyone working on and teaching those theories, billions of dollars spent at CERN. All waste in your opinion. I can and have demonstrated that I have listened to your theory and your worldview, but you keep repeating the impossibility of scientific theories, as if it’s true, without addressing any of the actual theories. Science does only predict the future, it uses the evidence of the present to work back how things came to be, what do you think detectives do? They look at a crime scene and recreate the crime.

You aren’t going to go the page I suggested, so here’s a summary, but it’s only a summary, I expect you might find some holes in it. You need to work on this, not me.

By “universe” I’m talking about the spacetime we observe, if you want to talk about things we can’t observe, like inside of a black hole, we can. We don’t know that time can have a cause. Causes precede events in time, so how do we even speak of that? We don’t know what kind of causation happens outside of a universe like ours. We don’t know what preceded the beginning of our universe, so can we really call it a “beginning”?

We do know that minds are complex, and one has never been observed without a body, so claiming that something that exists without time and not in a defined space has no evidence and no argument other than just filling in that unknown by saying it’s true. Instead, in our search for origins, we have theories like vacuum bubbles created by quantum fluctuations.  If you can explain what’s wrong with that theory, then I’d be interested.