Awww, I've been challenged by Ray Comfort. It's hard to take the little man too seriously, though: last time we were supposed to debate on the radio, it ended up with a change of plans, and he instead weebled absurdly without me. At this point, though, his only challenge to me seems to be to explain this post more carefully to him, and I really don't feel much incentive to use even littler words to go over the same old ground that atheists are smart enough to grasp.
The comments over there seem to answer most of his complaints already, anyway. Is there anybody who agrees with Comfort who reads his blog?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I occasionally check in with the pro-ID blog Uncommon Descent, on the off chance they may have said something interesting. Sadly, the blog has mostly fallen on hard times. Nowadays it's mostly just post after post whose only point is to demean and insult people, or to proffer absurd…
We are the New Atheists. We do not, however, like the name — ask any of us, and we'll tell you that there's nothing new about our atheism — all we're doing is speaking out about godlessness. I've talked to a lot of the so-called New Atheists, including some of the biggest big shots in this movement…
Hey, I've safely arrived here in Quito, Ecuador…and of course, I beat Phil Plait here, getting through customs and to the hotel long before he did. He's got to be getting used to second place by now.
I see the guestbloggers have come through and are doing a bang-up job, so I don't need to say much…
Poking through the archives to find some old physics posts to fill space while I'm away from the keyboard, I realize that back in 2002, I wrote a lot more about politics than I do now.This is largely because most of what I wrote about politics back then makes me cringe now. And, in fact, made me…
What a dolt.
Do you mean other than the occasional drive-by troll who doesn't ever post a comment or waste your time with random, non-hateful emails? No.
Weebles wobble but they don't fall stay down... goddammit.
I've spent some time there recently, and I know it's a terrible waste of energy to try to argue with a crank but I do feel compelled to call him out on his constant false statements about what atheists think.
There are commenters who agree with him, but they rarely say anything but "Great post, Ray! Why are people so blind? Keep up the good work!"
Comfort makes me embarrassed to be human.
Sadly, there are quite a few god-botherers who frequent his blog who really believe every thing he says.
How did that Plimer quote go refusing a request for a debate? "That would look great on your CV mate; not so good on mine."
What subject was he offering to debate?
That only happens so we can continue to laugh at him.
Is there anybody who agrees with Comfort who reads his blog?
I agree with him. IMO he's the smartest person the history of the univers has ever known.
Can anyone confirm the quotes at the top of his blog.
I can't seem to find anywhere, where einstein, hawkings and newton said those things.
Nice. I got called out in Ray's previous blog entry. Ray has been on this, "nothing created everything" kick lately. It's starting to come across as a little mean-spirited, but I think you handled it nicely, Professor Myers.
Keep up the good blogging.
D'oh... I followed the link provided. :) Ok, so he has a difficulty understanding the reason for sexes: but then bananaman also fails to understand that his favourite fruit is the result of thousands of years of artificial selection. Perhaps he should be offered the natural form of the fruit complete with seeds and see how tasty he finds that.
From Ray Comfort:
Well, there is this from Richard Dawkins:
"Mental things, brains, minds, consciousnesses, things that are capable of comprehending anything -- these come late in evolution, they are a product of evolution. They don’t come at the beginning. So whatever lies behind the universe will not be an intellect. Intellects are things that come as the result of a long period of evolution." (Richard Dawkins)
Of course, that won't comfort Mr. Comfort, since he doesn't accept evolution. His motto, instead, is "like comes from like."
I was thinking with the last Comfort post...
They call the banana the atheists nightmare, but if you think about it, it's the creationist's nightmare.
Because it's so perfect it was designed, blah blah blah.
Here's the thing though - IT WAS "DESIGNED". It's perfect for humans, want to guess who designed it? It's been cultivated for millenia. Give them a wild banana and see if they can recognize it at all.
If he comes at you with his banana, you'll need this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w
I saw the link in the previous post here earlier, read it, and posted. I guess that Ray didn't like my post enough, or appreciates ambiguity.... well not so ambiguous, I guess...
Look! God made you bananas, Ray!
The fool blindly accepts the Big Bang THEORY and blindly rejects evolutionary THEORY? I'm glad his ilk are finally retreating back to the Kalam cosmological argument. He can play with his ad hoc definitions all day.
Man, I love the use of the word "weeble" in describing Comfort's antics.
Is there anybody who agrees with Comfort who reads his blog?
Where there's a painting, there's a painter. Where there's a sculptor, there's a sculptor. And where there's agreement with Comfort's blog, there are agreers with Comfort's blog.
And before anyone points out that this is "begging the question," remember, that's just something atheists invented to deny this absolute logical proof!
You sure got under his skin PZ.
He can feel the sand giving way under his feet.
Not even bananas can save him from slipping into an irrelevant oblivion.
So AL exactly how does the logic here work? Since we can produce actual evidence of a painter or a sculptor, does it, therefore, logically follow that you can{ in the same manner} produce actual evidence of a God that would create?
Please do so since it seems none of your contemporaries like Ray Comfort can.
Read his blog? Are you serious? I started to, but didn't get much past the fabricated quotes at the top of the page. Life is short, and nobody's been able to demonstrate that there's anything after this life, so I won't be able to provide that guy with an audience, or enough hits on his site to encourage advertisers to sponsor him.
Banana man slipped up.
Bleh.
Ray Comfort, as in "the banana is the atheists nightmare" Ray Comfort. He's the lamest of the lame. A twit par excellence.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Ray, the universe began from a quantum fluctuation (big bang); a phase transition from potential energy to kinetic energy.
Quantum fluctuations were the FIRST CAUSE and PRIME MOVER of the universe. The universe before the big bang was in a quantum state. There's no need to resort to asking what came before quantum fluctuations because CAUSALITY breaks down at the subatomic level (the condition the universe was in the beginning).
Because the universe was in a quantum state before the big bang, it adheres to the quantum uncertainty principle. There can be NO SUCH THING AS NOTHING in this universe as long as the generation of energy via virtualparticle pairs does not violate the law of energy conservation; it requires no miracle or supernatural act to create the energy in the universe.
In fact, because energy is created all the time via virtual particle pairs, the universe was NOT CAUSED BY CHANCE, but by a process that occurs with regularity and consistency. Because there can be no such thing as 0 energy in the universe, the universe also adheres to the thermal laws of thermodynamics, which basically says absolute zero is unattainable. This shows that there cant be or never was NOTHING in this universe.
The universe violates NO LAW OF ENERGY CONSERVATION because the reserved positive energy density of the universe is equal to the critical density in which positive, kinetic and rest energy are balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. Energy can be both positive and NEGATIVE.
All the matter you see in the universe is counter-balanced by negative gravitational energy, since mass (matter) is always in a state of attraction. The universe is always in a state of zero energy thus violating no law of energy conservation and requiring no supernatural causation.
The universe makes utter sense that it was created by a finite causation, since it started in disorder and chaos. If it had a supernatural designer or intelligence to it, theres no logical reason why it would not have began with initial order and complexity.
PZ:
I would be very much in favor of a debate between you and Ray Comfort if the debate is restricted to only discussing the divine nature of the banana.
Time does not apply to the Universe,
because the Universe is not a thing. So it
has no issue with temporal existence traversing time.
The Universe cannot be created, since it is the sum total of all existence. To say the universe was created by a singularity is to say that at some point existence was not existence, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
The Universe is naturally eternal,
and was not began in prior supernatural
initiation. That means, everything subsequent
to the Universe, is by definition, finite, due to metaphysical contingency, which automatically falsifies all supernatural recourse, which includes a God.
The universe by definition is everything that exists, thus by corollary the universe IS existence because to say otherwise is to assert that which has the quality of existence, the universe, does not have the quality of existence. The irreducible primary of existence is the VACUUM OF TOTALITY from which all things emanate and were created from. This is what always existed. Humans have always called this vacuum of space a void or nothing, and that's where our understanding would of stayed were it not for quantum mechanics. Since the vacuum of totality is in a subatomic state it adheres to the quantum uncertainty principle. This principle tells us that a volume of empty space must contain energy since to establish the energy was 0 we would have to take measurements for eternity which is impossible. This confirms the vacuum of totality does exist since nothing can not do something and the vacuum indeed does create energy.
You can falsify that the vacuum of totality hasnt always existed, by logically showing how existence can be non-existent. Show how nothing can exist. One cannot ask what created the vacuum of totality which is the universe, because quantum mechanics confirms that the vacuum is in a sub-atomic state and in that state causality breaks down which halts any notion of infinite regress.
Also, properties of infinity cannot be applied to the universe, because the universe is not a thing. The universe is not a thing because it is not limited. It is not limited, because measurements cannot be applied to the universe. And measurements cannot be applied to the universe because the universe itself does not have mass or a finite volume. Furthermore, the universe cannot be measured, because linear measurements in three dimensions cannot be applied to the vacuum of totality.
What does means is time is in the universe, but the universe is not in time; size is in the universe, but the universe is not in size; what BEGAN is the entities inside the universe, which are finite, the universe itself never began and is eternal.
I'm not impressed with Mr. Comfort's misappropriation of what I'd consider a layman's perspective on a singularity, i.e. The Big Bang being "everything came from nothing". It's pretty close to being true.
In Mr. Comfort's attempts to spread his own message, he too is trying to emulate a singularity, by creating something from nothing. That makes him about as competent in nuclear physics as Sarah Palin is about the Bush Doctrine.
Enjoy.
Cosmologist,
Sure, but what about Pygmies and Dwarves?
Thanks for the wall of text, cosmologist. You have convinced me of everything you say because it is a Law Of The Internet that the more text you post on random Internet Blogs, the more truthful and understandable your statements are. It doesn't matter what you are saying, it only matters that you post lots of words. You are a master. Do you have an email address or website where I can find out more?
I'm not sure you bother. I've been reading his blog a little bit - the guy is truly a certifiable moron. It's amazing really, 99% of the comments deride and ridicule him. I can't imagine even any half-intelligent Christian not being severely embarrassed by him. It's one thing to intelligently engage with somebody who is sincere, well-meaning and at least tries to come up with a good argument - but this guy is beyond help. I think Ray truly believes that if atheists read his site that they will be exposed to scripture and the gospel, and the something *magical* might happen - so it doesn't really matter if he just makes all kinds of stupid nonsense up.
As somebody above said, life is too short to deal with this kind of crap.
One quick question for cosmologist.
Where do you get your weed? Must be hydro.
Enjoy.
You have to at least give him credit for having open comments on his blog. Most creationists aren't brave or honest enough. Although, he's getting a bit snotty about it.
#10 -- I just googled the first part of the einstein quote and it turned up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein. Of course the page then goes on to make it clear that Einstein felt otherwise.
Comfort says people in science make good money. When did this happen? Every study I've seen (unless financed from outside, like pharma) has to scratch for dough. As an icthyologist, I knew I was taking my vows of poverty. Lots more money in religion. Even that dolt El Wrong Hubbard knew that.
this is a problem.
this is a problem because people like ray comfort do have a certain amount of influence over gullible portions of the population -- so you have to write something and answer somehow.
... but by someone like pz doing so, ray's standing increases. by having blogs like this link to or refer to his pages, his hits and visits spike dramatically, and he gains legitimacy. i think this sad little man has mentioned pz simply to get exposure -- especially now that he's launched his latest joke of a website -- so, in that respect, he's succeeding.
is there some way of answering his delirious fantasies without actually increasing his internet presence? fortunately this blog post links only to his silly old soap box blog -- but even that has got to stop.
this reminds me of richard dawkins' refusal to debate creationists -- it's a very similar situation, in a blog-posty kind of way.
This "clown" has called PZ out, and an intellectually honest PZ may have to admit he's been nailed to the proverbial wall. It all depends on how consistent and informed PZ's belief structure is.
"He can’t say that the universe is eternal, because he knows that it's not."
Do you know this PZ? The problem here is that cosmologists are talking about a "universe" with a beginning, originating in the big bang. At one time "universe" meant all of existence, but as cosmologists use it, it refers to what we can observe and infer from physical laws. What came before the big bang is not considered yet because there is no way information about the prior state of things survived the big bang. We might someday have figured out something about the physical laws that allow us to infer something about the prior state, and perhaps to initiate a big bang ourselves. So the universe did not necessarily occur out of nothing. Something coming into existance out of nothing does represent a conceptual problem and a violation of causality, but somee form of existance may be eternal much as "God" is conceived to be in some religions.
"He doesn’t know how the universe got here, but he somehow knows that the Creator wasn’t a “who.” How does he know that? Does he have some inside information? I would like to hear it. Bring it on Professor Myers. How do you know that a "who" wasn’t involved in creation?"
This is PZ's explanation, is it adequate: "I'm quite sure it wasn't his imaginary Christian god, since there is no reason to consider the accounts of his faith to be accurate."
To PZ's credit he didn't say there wasn't a "who" involved, he just expressed a certainty ("sure") that it wasn't the Christian god.
Given the paucity of information available about events before the big bang, it is quite possible for a "who" to have been involved in its initiation. But it may have been a natural occurance given the pre-big-bang state. Being near a big bang does not seem survivable, but perhaps it was initiated remotely. There is no known physical mechanism by which such a "who" could have influenced earth and the lives of Jesus or be responding half hazardly to prayers. But the Christians could choose to worship this hypothetical being whose existance can't be disputed or confirmed. Jesus may have channeled what such a being would "obviously" be thinking.
There is, of course, no evidence of a link with this hypothetical being, there is no evidence that it could have survived the big bang, there is no evidence that it would care to be worshipped, and there is no evidence that it would have humans in mind, or like humans or be good by a human definition of good.
Is PZ claiming to be "sure" about something, he can't be sure of? Why bother. Isn't the lack of evidence enough.
cosmologist: tl;dr.
jpf: Ray Comfort's got a pretty big memory hole on that site. A lot of stuff doesn't make it through.
sorry to keep at this, but to be blunt: i think ray comfort doesn't care about any argument at all... so reason and evidence and arguing are POINTLESS. i think he means to make as much money as he can and infect as many ignorant minds as possible.
And toomanytribbles @ #36 has it right but doesn't draw the thing out to its conclusion: This is a no-win situation. Don't respond, and he'll claim that you can't stand up to GAAAAAWD; respond, and he'll simply claim victory anyhow, since his sheep won't even try to be objective about it.
Personally, I don't give douchewads like him the time of day anyhow. "Life's too short to hang out with a bunch of assbags," as a great man once said.
OT but related. Looks like another well deserving clown has gotten another comeuppance. Poor Ted, nothing ever goes right for him.
Link and H/T to DailyKos
Yeah, scratch my previous comment. I see now that he does vet comments. I went to leave one on that post I linked to and it requires you to have a Blogger account, and then there's no telling if the comment will be approved or not. So no credit to Ray.
Anyway, here's my response to "Its ALL about JESUS !!!", since I went to the trouble of writing it before I noticed:
No wonder he doesn't understand evolution... He's clearly devolved from Sonny Bono.
It's hard to agree with someones blog when you can't leave a comment.
Cosmologist better get some help from "Question-beggars anonymous"
It's even harder to disagree, which is usually the point.
toomanytribbles has it just about right. The likes of Comfort are not attempting to win an argument with the folks who frequent sites like Pharyngula. David Eller in his book Atheism Advanced explains it well: they merely wish to have you acknowledge their existence by entering into the debate, and this gives them the credibility they so desire. The debate is secondary. To have this debate with Myers would be a great victory, regardless of the outcome. God-Speak will be kept in high prominence because of it. And if the likes of Myers is willing to debate the likes of Comfort... surely Comfort must be of SOME importance?
Regards
Dave
PZ
Why don't you just send this cat a box of 64 crayola crayons and a doodle book? And tell him to write you when he has somethhing worthwhile to tell you.
Not going to read Comforts blog because my time is valuable to me.
With regard to what science says about what caused the Big Bang. We don't know. Science doesn't know everything and we may know someday...or not. This is a good thing, otherwise we would all have to get other jobs once everything is known.
There are however, a few theories.
1. The Multiverses.
2. Colliding branes from higher dimensional spaces.
3. The infinite universe where all combinations of fundamental constants are possible. In regions where our type of matter and energy are possible, one ends up with intelligent life to wonder how it all happened.
These are scientific theories that can be tested in principle. Whether any of them are correct or whether we will ever know remains to be determined.
While we may or may not ever know what caused or existed before the Big Bang, one thing is certain. There was indeed a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. We can see it easily with modern instruments and since telescopes look back in time as well as distance, we can see back to almost the beginning of the universe.
I don't even want to LOOK at the dickwad's blog.
I won't give him the traffic to fluff up the already over-inflated ego.
Also, I don't have to step in dog shit to know that it stinks...
His arguments are so lame and his approach is so dishonest, that I've always thought the creo stuff was just a job to him. How hard can it be to just lie a lot and pander to fundie xian morons? It's not like his audience is smart, well educated, or concerned with the truth or reality.
The same goes for many or most of the so called fundie leaders. Robertson, Haggard, Benny Hinn and the rest of them. Some of them might believe their nonsense but they are all happy to scoop up as many bucks as they can.
Ray Comfort seems to thrive on attention. Perhaps it's some form of narcissistic personality disorder. He seems to be impervious to the abuse he regular receives on his blog, and in fact proudly displays these comments for all too see. For the sake of his mental health, we should all ignore him. I recommend not posting on his blog - if you've hung out there for anytime, it's fairly apparent that even if you patiently correct his many egregious errors, you're really wasting your time. He has no capability for personal self-reflection. Isn't it sad how religious fundamentalism can ruin a mind.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
By the way, I'm still not a hundred percent convinced that Ray isn't running a very elaborate Poe designed to bilk Christians out of their hard earned money.
"Atheists believe..." ... Atheists are an incredibly diverse group of people that believe all sorts of things. Atheism is simply 'without theism' or without a god. It doesn't matter which god. Atheists may hold any number of ideas or beliefs. And they may be just as incorrect in these also. But there is convention. And convention here (as in Pharyngula) holds that atheism tends to believe in what is rational. Atheism in the American vernacular rejects not only gods, but irrational thought or make belief if you will. So you find "Darwinism" not to your liking. At least it is a testable hypothesis. Superstitions are not. Religions are not. Who lives in a fantasy?
Regards
Dave
Aaw! I like Cosmologist's post. Not sure I got all of it. Physics isn't really my field, but I think what he said made sense...
Comfort isn't worth commenting on... ah.
Now it's neodarwinism? Time to update my spell check.
Jebus freakin' Cracker!
Come on ... give him a break. It's hard for him, `cause he doesn't know anything. You expect this CrackPot to know physics and cosmology?
How can "everything" come out of "nothing"?
Well Mr. Comfort should hear this marvelous talk by Sir. Penrose:
Before the Big Bang: Is There Evidence For Something And If So, What?
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/Flash/682b6519-df34-4402-b5ba-bef…
I would suggest you shouldn't waste precious time with this idiot ... better to spend on something else.
Get with the twenty-first century, troll. The term "darwinist" is a dead giveaway that you're talking out of your fundament. Your use of the word "believe" to characterise the mental habits of scientists is just as great a display of ignorance. As an atheist and student of science I prefer to "believe" in as little as necessary; to paraphrase Laplace, "I have no need of that hypothesis".
I've seen enough evidence from your writing to determine that you're the one without any idea of science. Go away and educate yourself before returning.
Cosmologist, you say:
"What does means is time is in the universe, but the universe is not in time; size is in the universe, but the universe is not in size; what BEGAN is the entities inside the universe, which are finite, the universe itself never began and is eternal."
This sounds so good. In Penrose's view (see my previous post), "our" universe began when the first particle with mass appeared. He's got some really nice ideas about what could have happened before the so called "big bang". He might be wrong, but he gets us thinking outside the "box", or shall we call it - universe.
with wrote:
Which formulae? There's more than one set of formulae.
Are you talking about Sewall Wright?
Was it useless to work in animal husbandry for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to improve livestock?
Are you talking about W. D. Hamilton's inclusive fitness theory?
Do you understand what's wrong with Ray's views on evolution?
PZ,
it seems that he's really challenging you to upgrade his computer for him. Apparently his can't do html links, since he doesn't provide any to the responses of yours from which he selectively quotes.
Obviously, it must be a problem with his computer.
Has anyone seen my dice? Albert?
I think PZ may give him what he wants, attention, by acknowledging him here.
Now you've really gone and done it, Professor Myers.
http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/01/professor-myers-flakes.html
I wish I was Ray Comfort and could blather on like a six-year-old in lieu of doing actual work for a living. Seriously, he's like the smarmy dickweed in school that everyone hates. And he's trying to pick a fight with an actual biologist. Giving him any attention could only be a complete waste of time.
He really is getting his ass handed to him in the comments though, too bad he's the most oblivious person in the entire world. I sifted through there only long enough to find this little gem from a rare supporter of Comfort:
"Atheists seem to have problems believing God created everything and that He is apart from time and infinitely eternal."
Jeez gosh, imagine that! I have the same trouble with believing that Santa Claus exists outside time and can therefore hit everyone's house on a single Christmas Eve night. I really need to get my faith checked.
"The probability of there being something
rather than nothing can actually be calculated.
It is about 60%."
---Victor Stenger
Shorter Comfy:
Fail.
@ Jim Battle #34:
Your link is broken because you put a full-stop on the end of it. It should be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
and is basically the usual Einstein dishonest equivocation through being too cowardly to admit to his atheism (it was a very dirty and dangerous word in his place and time).
The fuller version of the Newton quote is much more revealing:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
The second descriptor of atheism, carefully omitted by Ray Comfort, already explains rather well why people would avoid professing it despite it being true. Newton then goes on to almost pre-empt Darwin on common descent - but fails because he hasn't bothered to learn all the facts (or even remotely close to enough). Eg he ignores all the animals with different numbers and types of eye (which are again more closely related to each other than to those in different lineages).
Some things of notice about Ray Comfort:
1. He's too thickheaded to understand anything, no matter how hard you try to explain something to him
2. He gets off on the attention. To him, it doesn't matter if you absolutely destroy him by argument. The fact that you're replying to him at all gives the appearance that he's 'in the debate'.
He's creationism personified
Called out by a clown?
Hmm, maybe Ray wants a pie-fight. Probably with banana-cream filling - though maybe to honour his New Zealand heritage he'd throw in a couple of kiwi fruit. Either way it'd have to be more entertaining than listening to him talk lie his stupid ass off.
Still, he has a lot more clowns on his side than we do - thankfully...
Ray Comfort fans can read now? Does that mean no more banana videos? Oh no.
Comfort (who clearly has been drinking too much of his excellent fabric conditioner):
No, little Raykins, an atheist is someone who does not believe!
I do wish people on both sides of the insult-throwing divide would stop generalising about "atheists" and a spurious concept of "atheism". There is no coherent worldview or approach common to all atheists except the simple tautology that atheists do not believe in god(s).
In cladistic terms, the ideology is paraphyletic.
Comfort, on the other hand, has porridge for brains.
Cosmologist at 27 said;
I'm not so sure that's a big problem around the "time" of the Big Bang, since the physical laws which govern our universe now did not necessarily apply then (i.e. things like space-time didn't exist in the traditional sense in the very early universe). Thus, attempts to logically reason out what could or could not happen at that juncture may well be fruitless. One cannot have cause and effect in the absence of time, and likewise it may have been possible to have contradictory things existing, or not, at that time.
We have to thank the clown for showing the world that christianity equals stupidity
The fool said in his heart: Everything I don't understand is made by gawd
Is the earth round? yes
Does the earth spin? Yes
Are logical fallacies and quote mining ray comfort's favorite past time? Hell yes.
A lot of us on Ray's piece of crap blog now just post meaningless nonsense rather than allow him to imagine his feeble posts deserve anything more.
Hey, if nonsense is good enough for Ray, it's good enough for the rest of us, right?
Oh, and there's something of a skeptic's community that originated in a shared dislike of Ray's blog over at http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/index.php - please feel free to pop your head round the door.
Ray's already got a newer post calling PZ out on this post!
There's also another thread talking about why Ray just recycles his old articles and the purpose of his site. Note his little disclaimer on his home page:
Call me cynical but I think that Ray's intentionally starting a pissing match to rile us up so he can publish our outraged comments in an Atheists are Such Haters book.
Still laughing at the atheist's bird problem section on the original site:
Because they're smarter than you, Ray.
A more entertaining Bananaman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNknWT-agT0
toomanytribbles #36
Not had a chance to read through all the comments here,(as usual) so probably repeating others before, but..AGREED!
...and yeah...English IS my first languange!
Comfort made up his own definition of atheism. He's been told numerous times that his definition is wrong but he hasn't acknowledged the corrections. The quotes at the top of his blog are quote-mined. He makes numerous fallacious arguments about evolution and atheism and ignores all attempts to explain why he's wrong. In short, Ray Comfort is intellectually dishonest.
I recommend that PZ not pander to Comfort's deceit.
..typos are my second..
p.s. not trying to compete with any of y'all..honestly! :p
SEF writes
The whole quote is actually highly dubious. Its source is the autobiography of Prince Hubertus zu Löwenstein (titled "Towards the Further Shore"), in which he claimed that some years earlier Einstein had made that remark at a dinner party. So the wording is not Einstein's (whoever remembers dinner conversation exactly?), and as for the sentiment, well note that Prince Hubertus was decorated by the Pope for his services to the Catholic Church, which suggests some partiality in the matter.
Thus this quote is far too dubious to deserve the prominence it gets on many websites. It is also out of line with much that is unquestionably Einstein's words. I guess its wide distribution comes from the fact that the religious are clutching at straws.
Here's the quote:
I wonder why Comfort didn't consult ornithologists before putting up his site? Likewise I wonder why he didn't consult biologists about just how sex evolved? Could it be that he's not interested in making sure his questions didn't have answers, and instead just wanted to have articles for credulous morons to send to the ignorant? Comfort's site is an abortion of knowledge, a bastion to ignorance, and it's amazing that the fool thinks that he's said something profound.
Tis Himself
Well just how ya think he's gunna sell to the gullible ignorant ostriches otherwise?
Good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. Comfort would have had to pray hard for a new keyboard for me.
I'm sorry- Did you just say 'the little man'? Kind of insulting, no?
Comfort gets a lot of mileage out of an utter straw man of current cosmological thinking which I never see anyone explain in debates with theists.
Only creationists think or claim the universe came from nothing. Physicists don't think the universe came from nothing, they think it came from something, from mass/energy in a state and form different from the states and forms of mass/energy that we see to presently constitute the universe, possibly from pre-existing mass/energy in the form of quantum potential (not even vacuum is energy-free).
If supernatural creator God can have always existed without beginning or first-cause, then why cannot mass/energy have always existed without beginning or first-cause in a state and form of quantum potential capable of interconverting to the states and forms of mass/energy that we see to constitute the universe today? It seems WAY more likely that something has always existed (in one state and form or another) whose existence today we can empirically demonstrate (mass/energy in various inter-convertible states/forms) than that something has always existed whose existence today cannot be empirically demonstrated (supernatural God).
PZ, if you decide to take Comfort up on his offer, get some input from Lawrence Krauss or Brian Greene on how best to articulate this and publicly slay this pernicious straw man that creationists perpetually foist on the public once and for all.
Ok, Mr. Ray Comfort (RC) let's examine your silly nonsense thoughts shall we?
(1) "An atheist is someone who believes that nothing created everything." - RC
First off most atheists that I know would rather not "believe" anything but want something which you've obviously got no idea about, and that's known as "proof" and "evidence" which enables one to set aside childish "beliefs" and to actually know things as fact.
"(2) The statement (1) is a huge dilemma for the professor, because he knows that only a fool could believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything. (3) He can’t say that the universe is eternal, because he knows that it's not. (4) So he is left with the predicament of having to admit that something created everything. (5) Professor Myers believes in a Creator of some sort; he just doesn’t know its identity." - RC
Wow, RC that's quite the pile of steaming nonsense to sift through. Prepare to get your hands wet and sticky slinging that spew clean with clarity of critical and rational thought.
Response to (2): RC's statement number (2) claims that it's a "scientific impossibility" that nothing created everything. Hmmm... well, let's see how there are serious problems with that. First off RC please provide the scientific evidence for your statement. Second, let's look at the most accurate scientific theory that human beings have ever devised and see what it has to say about creating something from nothing:
"Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is a relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. QED was developed by a number of physicists, beginning in the late 1920s. It basically describes how light and matter interact. More specifically it deals with the interactions between electrons, positrons and photons. QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons. It has been called "the jewel of physics" for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen."
"Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter (known as free space). The vacuum energy is deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which are themselves derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle. Its effects can be observed in various phenomena (such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the Van-Der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales."
"... it contains short-lived "virtual" particle-antiparticle pairs which are created out of the vacuum and then annihilate each other."
Ok, so the most accurate scientific theory of Quantum Mechanics that humans have verified results for actually states that particles pop into and out of existence in a vacuum where there is "nothing"!
So, the best theory we currently have to explain how the physical universe works says that stuff gets created from nothing all the time!
It's not a far stretch to think that it all started the same way, and in fact that is one of the hypotheses of Quantum Gravity theories.
Another response to (2): we don't know but science is the best way to find out if it's possible to find out.
Response to (3): We don't know if the Universe is Eternal. The current best guess is that it might be eternal since it's currently undergoing an accelerating expansion where all the matter in the known universe is accelerating faster and faster away from each other on the large scale. This - if unchecked - will probably lead to the "cold death" where there is an infinite amount of space between each atom (or even worse between each sub atomic particle) and the temperature has dropped to essentially absolute zero. Essentially the universe will be a huge vacuum with infinite space between atoms. Not very pleasant.
Is that the end of the universe? That's a good question... a cold universe might be considered a dead universe but it of course has quantum vacuum fluctuations in it so it's still active.
Is a cold infinite universe the same as nothing? Good question.
Is a cold infinite universe the same as the initial conditions of our universe at the moment of the big bang? A big freeze and a big bang due to a vacuum flucation without a big crunch? Good question.
Lots of questions, not many answers yet, and if ever. However, one thing is certain, we don't know for sure but the current evidence is that the universe likely won't end. At least not how one might think.
Another response to (3): we don't know but science is the best way to find out if it's possible to find out.
Response to (4): "Something created everything"... actually the current leading big bang theories say something different. The idea is that space-time-energy (matter formed quickly thereafter) came into existence. Time started. There was no time before the big bang. Space started. There was no space before the big bang. Energy started. There was no energy before the big bang. Since there was no space, no time, and no energy there also was no nothing. Nothing can't exist without space, time or energy/matter.
The real problem is that we can't use the English language to express the concept that nothing existed before space-time-energy since not even nothing existed before as there was no before and no place for anything not even nothing to exist. Nothing implies space, matter, energy and time. Since no of these existed nothing could not exist either.
It's a pernicious trap of the English Language that our brains keep wanting to grasp that nothing or something existed before the big bang. The current theories of the big bang - which have quite a bit of evidence - are expressed in complex mathematics which few understand and even fewer can explain especially using language. We almost need a new distinction that splits nothing into two concepts: nothing-in-our-existing-universe and nothing-without-before-space-time-energy-matter-existence.
Another aspect of the problem is that special needs folks like RC insist on bringing their invisible friends along for the ride.
Another response to (4): Notice that RC doesn't answer the question "who created God" in his posting. Always these guys avoid the key question that undermines their invisible friend. Answer the frigging question RC. Have the guts to answer "who created God" RC!
Another response to (4): Quantum Gravity Theories suggest that the entire universe with all it's space-time-energy-matter was created as a vacuum fluctuation and has so far stuck around although it looks like it's headed for the universal cold death in something like 100 Billion Years. So everything popped into existence in the big bang and will fizzle out in the cold death.
Another response to (4): Due to the laws of Nature, e=mc^2 and it's ilk, it's not possible for anything to exceed the speed of "c" (light) which means that no beings can have omnipresence nor omnipotence nor omniscience (all required properties for almost every definition of God except those without potency). The well known and well tested laws of Nature literally prevent Gods from existing (or from not existing as Dinesh D'Souza likes to pretend in his psychosis and delusions).
Response to (5): Is believing in the Big Bang and "nothing" before that the same as believing in a "creator"? No, since most atheists don't "believe" in the big bang as most atheists treat it as a mystery or unknown that may or may not be solved with science. Also, most atheists won't take on "beliefs" that they can't substantiate somehow using rational thought processes. Sure I suppose some might. Naturally I'll let the Professor speak for himself as to what his beliefs are, if he has any.
RC, you're very confused. You seem to require an invisible friend for you to face the harsh challenges of living in the objective reality of Nature. For some reason you can't or won't face the facts of life in all their harsh beauty. RC it's obviously difficult for you to live life without your special need for an invisible friend to keep you company. I'm sure that you receive much comfort from your delusional mythology of Gods and super beings.
Just remember these facts of life. Newton proved that no human being - past, present or future - can fly up into the sky without the technology a space ship of some kind. Gravity really sucks us down into the ground. Get used to it.
Every time you step into a pool of water or bath tub with water you prove that no man named "Jesus" or tom, dick or harry could ever walk on water without cheating.
Everytime you look up at the night sky and see stars you see the evidence that no superbeings, no Gods - no one - can be omnipresent, omnipotent, or omniscient.
Face the facts of life RC. Leave the petty comfort of your delusional beliefs in God(s) and Angels and Demons - come back to objective reality RC, there are many loving real people here ready to provide real comfort and assistence dealing with living in the objective reality of Nature. Come out of your fantasy world RC and come into the light of real life without your demons that haunt you. Leave the demon and God(s) behind. Leave the nonsense and join us in real life.
----
Scientific quotes are from Wikipedia.
Why do people post novella-length responses to Raynman's idiocy here, when his site accepts comments?
Curiosity drove me to check out he Comfort site. Almost all the comments were from naturalists disputing Comfort's absurd statements. Amusing. It is like cats sharpening their claws on a wooden post.
Well, now, let's not be too hard on the guy...
I mean, if he hasn't seen too far, it's probably mostly because he'd need an extension ladder even to climb onto the giants' shoulders...
(... 'sides which, he's deathly afraid of those heights.)
I said it on the last disComfort thread, but only after it had run out of steam:
full version of bananaman song here--
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/01/bananaman-song.html
Tell us a lie, you're Bananaman,
Tell us a lie, or two
Cos we're all in the mood for a belly-laugh
And you've got us laughing at you!
Why bother? Like most creos who pretend their mumbo jumbo is real, he lives in a thought free, reality free bubble and has no interest in the truth or facts.
Life is too short to waste the time.
I also think it's offensive to refer to Mr Comfort as a "little man".
I'm a little over five foot and I'd rather not be compared to Comfort. I'm offended :)
Because responses here have somewhat more effect than responses on his blog. Comfort responded to a post PZ made here. He's yet to respond to anything on his blog.
It was so hard to go over to Comfort's web site because I laughed and laughed so hard at his ignorance that I couldn't see due to the tears of laughter.
Now I know where to go when I need a big belly laugh!
"Why do people post novella-length responses to Raynman's idiocy here, when his site accepts comments?" - Dinkum
(1) Because I don't know if he'll publish the comment due to his posted comment editorial policy.
(2) I've taken the time to write the novella and want people to read that darn thing. Not everyone knows about or reads both and the comment is relevant to both.
(3) The arguments based in science presented are not that common and I'm attempting to correct that.
(4) The audiences of the two web blogs are different and I'd like to get the vetting of it here and the scathing comments of it there, although the reverse is likely too.
;-)
"That makes him about as competent in nuclear physics as Sarah Palin is about the Bush Doctrine."
You're giving Ray more credit than he's due on this one.
"Life is too short to waste the time." - raven
Just as you've done posting your comment that "Life is too short to waste the time."
Actually the point is that it's my time to waste.
I don't consider it a waste as posting it requires me to think it through and sharpen it. That alone is worth it. If someone gets something positive out of my writing then that is worth it.
What in the world does he mean by calling you a "professor of atheism" rather than "professor of biology" or an "atheist professor"?
Cuttlefish, that's terrific :D
Ray.
*laughs
Actually pwl, I'll thank you for your novella. It's always good to see a plausible explanation into the formation of the known universe in layman terms. Most of the info I had some inkling about but its also always good to see someone express my own thinking so clearly with some of the details filled in.
@90
The Banana Man is actually three feet tall, so, no it's not an insult.
PZ, no debating clowns unless the topic is greasepaint, over-sized shoes, etc.
The Banana Man, Ray Comfort, shares a percentage of his genes with bananas. Just how bananas is Ray Comfort?
"Ok, so the most accurate scientific theory of Quantum Mechanics that humans have verified results for actually states that particles pop into and out of existence in a vacuum where there is "nothing"!"
pwl,
While you are correctly characterizing the theory, you may well be extrapolating it beyond its limits. Despite the formulation of QM, vacuum energy may be contingent upon mass/energy and so technically is not from complete nothing. Keep in mind that QM has never been verified in the presence of nothing (or rather the absense of something). Every experiment would probably have been penetrated by billions (give or take a few orders of magnitude) of neutrinos, and perhaps dark matter and dark energy as well. A vacuum that is truly "nothing" is not currently possible in the observable universe.
Human stupidity makes me laugh, Comfort's stupidity makes me piss my pants and squirt soda through my nostrils.
This guy is so rediculous, he is not worthy of note. I wonder if we stopped mocking him, would he go away?
Here more at my sweet 'blag': http://microbialmicrocosm.blogspot.com/
Lighten up. Life is too short to waste time on Comfort's blog for reasons I presented.
I didn't even hint that writing a longish explanation of cosmological theory on Pharyngula is a waste of time. I even posted one of my own and read yours.
Not all scientific explanations lend themselves to zippy one liners. Especially in fields where we have little actual data such as abiogenesis or the pre-Big Bang nature of reality.
The Einstein and Newton quotes on Comfort's blog have been dealt with, but it should be noted that his use of that Hawking quote is particularly dishonest. Here's the context. Hawking was discussing a hypothetical, and if that hypothetical were true, then "It would be very difficult to explain" etc. This context has been pointed out to Ray, but he continues to use it.
pwl, your summary of current physics is correct, but that really doesn't solve the problem posed by Comfort or religious folks in general, since there is no explanation as to why the universe behaves in that fashion. In other words, why is there vacuum energy, and virtual particles, and all the other foundational concepts underlying the physics you described?
Of course, Comfort has the same problem with a notion of "god" (i.e., where did god come from), he just tries to define it away (i.e., a quality of "god" is "wasn't created").
We collectively give this guy far too much attention. The way I see it, our attention is one of the tools that supports his career. There has got to be a way to counter the idiocy and at the same time ignore the idiot. The same goes for anyone like him.
Any thoughts?
#115 - why not? Seriously, there are debates going on, and investigation into, the possible constraints that could show that what we have is perhaps one of the few possible (either due to some laws we are not currently aware of, or some peculiarity of the start-up conditions, etc). I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to do more than toss that out (I have gotten this from Vic Stenger first, but have heard it elsewhere)
#92 - the limits on speed of light travel gave me an idea for a short story, although my writing skills are not too good (for fiction, that is). Scientists find a pattern in the microwave background radiation that indicates intelligence, people go crazy as they work to decode it, finding that this is a thought of a "god". Finally, they decode the message, one of the first thoughts of god, looking for something huge ("let there be light" or "I am who am"), everybody waits with bated breath, and a loud, booming, slow, voice comes out over the loudspeakers the world over...."Oooooops!"
Just the thought of god with mental processes that take billions of years to form or go from one end of the being to another (the universe) called to mind the "thoughts of trees" that are so slow that a year goes by before a thought is completed (ala the Ents of Tolkien - sp?).
Dinkum asks: Why do people post novella-length responses to Raynman's idiocy here, when his site accepts comments?
I thought the idea was to offer PZ possibly useful suggestions without tipping-off Comfort & company in advance. Remember, forewarned is forearmed, and I don't think we have any obligation to tip Comfort off (I think he should work for his tip-offs). Plus, if Comfort sees and comes to really understand just how precariously his whole argument on this subject rests on a felonious straw man of current cosmological thinking, he might himself flake-out of his challenge to PZ (yet continue making his argument to his adoring followers), and I (for one) am really hoping PZ can and does accept and meet the challenge to debate this issue and set straight for the interested public just what current cosmological thinking actually is on this subject and that it ain't what Comfort misrepresents it to be. Today's scientists do not claim or think the universe came from nothing (ex nihilo), it is ONLY creationists who think and claim that it did.
If this debate for some reason does not come off, then we can all dress-up our novella-length rebuttals to Comfort's felonious argument and deluge his website with them.
Not sure if this will count as posting too fast, but after rereading 115, I also thought of the various multiverse/brane/etc hypothesis being proposed. The multiverse hypothesis can easily explain the nature of physics in our world by positing other universes that operate under different basic laws. Of course, this hypothesis really reminds me of Plantiga's (and others) "possible worlds" in philosophy. It suffers the same weakness as a (current) lack of probability (and maybe plausibility, I'm not sure). It works in comic books and fiction, but until we have something testable, we're just in the realm of intellectual exercises.
IMHO he is not worth answering, especially in a debate. He should be largely ignored. A debate with him would only lead to the creationists usual claim that they are important enough to gain a debate with a scientist, etc. Any agreement to debate him would only further inflate his undeserved ego!
How to make Ray sad? Ignore him.
How to make Ray sadder? Expose him before his adoring audience to be the sad sack purveyor of piffle that he is.
i have used the term 'little man' to describe comfort, and NOT as a reference to stature. it's a reference to intelligence and ethics.
I've spent a lot of time at Atheist Central, and have come to several conclusions:
1) Ray's not sincere
2) He considers lying for Jesus to be a virtue
3) He doesn't have nearly the amount of faith he thinks he does.
Although I'd love to see PZ kick Ray's fundamentalist arse, I can't in all good conscience recommend that he does so. Ray will quote mine and mischaracterize and willfully misinterpret any point of view that contradicts his own. It's not worth an atheist's effort (imho)
"How to make Ray sadder? Expose him before his adoring audience to be the sad sack purveyor of piffle that he is."
The trouble is that he edits or deletes the most pointed criticisms, or he alters his own posts to make himself look better. Look at the header graphic for his blogs--the big giant floating head of Ray. I think that alone speaks volumes about this guy. [Besides everyone knows you put your picture in the side bar.]
He also co-opts the quote-mined posts for his benefit, incorporating them into the drivel he publishes.
Ditto that.
V.H. writes: IMHO he [Ray Comfort] is not worth answering, especially in a debate. He should be largely ignored. A debate with him would only lead to the creationists usual claim that they are important enough to gain a debate with a scientist...
Not if the debate is held in a non-academic venue (say, a church, or non-university public site), and especially not if he gets his clock cleaned in the debate -- which is not hard to have happen when one is arguing against an utterly erroneous (I say: felonious) straw man of current scientific thinking.
Ray's entire life depends upon him maintaining and propagating this lie. Do you think he's just going to stop one day because you've trashed one of his arguments?
The great con men just move on to the next argument, and that is what Ray does.
Of course not. But letting the giant pinata turds he hangs just sit there without taking a swing at them does nothing but lend an air of legitimacy to them.
If anything maybe one person who used to believe him will at the very least start to question the incredibly dishonesty he displays daily.
I tried to comment over on Ray's blog, but after writing, I decided it wasn't worth signing up and allowing his Javascripts and all. Maybe he'll read this here:
PZ, don't you debate the guy. All a debate is, is two guys preaching sermons from the same stage. It's the religious guy's game. He can say anything, just like during a sermon, and he's used to that. Even though you are a teacher, your true work is done off a stage. His moneymaker is standing up, shooting off his mouth about any kind of bull, with no facts, evidence or slides, even. He's the pro, and he's at home.
Well, you'd probably still win, but he and his followers won't realize it, and will claim a win just for getting you on stage. Challenge him to bring slides, or perform an experiment or something--that might be amusing.
Hmm, I was thinking something more like:
It was Billowang's day to visit the science museum. Unknown to the guide, the day before someone had turned off several critical systems protecting the "Quantum Gel" experiment in on exhibit, to clean the quantum inhibiting lid. While the rest of the group followed along after the guide, Billowang got curious, lifting up the lid. It looked just like myst to him, being the nature of his race to see it as such, so he got the idea to blow on it. The first thing heard in the new universe that rapidly formed was, "Oooh! Lights!", followed by, "Billowang, get back here now!", and a thud, as the lid dropped back over the container.
Here is how you use a banana to argue for the existence of god.
(Okay - so I just wanted to link to Sheldon. There haven't been any 'pods featured, so I haven't had a hook.)
RBDC,
I totally agree that he flings shit with the skill of a man who has a common ancestor with monkeys.
Such energy directed at him also gives him credibility.
Its like calling Rush Limbaugh an ass. It only makes his followers circle the wagons.
But I don't think the fight is with him. If that energy was directed at the bigger fish, then i think the battle would go a lot better and people like Ray would be marginalized simply because they would be recognized as the crackpots they are.
but that's just my too cents. I also like to see Ray get his ass handed to him. So go for it PZ, rip him a new one. At least we can all be entertained.
What makes you think anyone who follows Comfort is capable or willing to be rational or logical?
Read the comments here on Pharyngula posted by Facilis, and multiply that by several thousand, to realize how some people will never suspend their beliefs no matter how much empirical evidence you pile in front of them that contradicts those beliefs. They'll just chalk it up to Satan.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own", is the rallying cry of people who think a magical sky wizard suspends the laws of physics to perform isolated miracles.
It's this willful ignorance and blind obstinance that cannot be conquered by logic, evidence (or the lack thereof) or reason because, for these people, it is abhorrently unthinkable to live in a godless, magicless world without the promise of a paradisical afterlife, and a Hell to eternally punish their foes as well as a predefined purpose for their existence. Their fear and wishful thinking trumps reality.
Never try to teach a pig to sing...
The teacher asked Little Johnny to use "horticulture" in a sentence to which he replied:" You can drive a whore to culture, but you can't make her think." Thus endeth the lesson. Amen
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
E.V, to be fair, that is a line said by Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame. I do think that Adam is creditable, if rather explosive, popular proponent of of critical thought. I also think the line works well with yelling at godbots. "I reject your reality (A demon haunted world.) and substitute my own."
EV: the "whore to culture" line is generally attributed to Dorothy Parker.
Janine: Agreed.
yeah you're probably right.
I guess it's just me trying to support something that entertains me.
Watching Ray lie and watching his followers eat it up.
Sorry, I didn't mean to slight Adam. I assumed everyone knew Adam's popular "I reject your reality..." was from the ubiquitousMythbusters. ( Tshirts are available everywhere on line.)
Parker's quote was “You can drag a horticulture, but you can't make her think.”
I love Dorothy Parker quotes but this one has been quoted and misquoted in so many contexts that attribution wasn't really necessary.
How long did it take Ray Comfort and his failed actor boyfriend to lose in a debate to the Rational Response Squad? Five minutes would be generous. Comfort can't win a debate, but he could win at stand up comedy. Usually I'd say it's bad form to make fun of retards but I'll make an exception in Ray's case.
The Bird Overlord has struck! I posted a very polite comment asking Ray for his opinion of my refutation of his "atheists' problems with birds" thingy. We'll see if he responds. I doubt it, but it warms the cockles of my heart to think that he might read it.
"How to make Ray sadder? Expose him before his adoring audience to be the sad sack purveyor of piffle that he is." -- Frank Lovell
"What makes you think anyone who follows Comfort is capable or willing to be rational or logical?" -- E.V.
The fact that four of our current local pack o' atheists/freethinkers here in my city were formerly mouth-foaming Christian fundamentalists for whom rational inquiry over time prevailed in leading them from the Dark Side to intellectual liberation and wonderful, God-free life.
In fact, almost all of the atheists I know (and I know a bunch) were former religious believers (including myself), many were Christian fundamentalists; this leads me to think that not all who are enshrouded in superstitious religious belief and think dolts like Comfort speak for (alleged) God are immune to the liberating benefits of reason.
That's what makes me think some who follow Comfort might be capable and willing to listen to reason and perhaps learn to think rationally.
Granted, I could be wrong, but there it is.
"While you are correctly characterizing the theory, you may well be extrapolating it beyond its limits. ... A vacuum that is truly "nothing" is not currently possible in the observable universe." - africangenesis
The point about the vacuum is interesting.
If you reread what I wrote you'll see that it's all conditional, and I was simply listing hypothesized theories that physicists have put forward, so it's their extrapolation, not mine....
Of course since there was no space-time there could not have been nothing! It's difficult to grasp. No time, no space, no nothing not even nothing. No energy or infinite energy in no space and in no time - does that even make sense? is that even possible?
Actually the big bang hypotheses rule out the existence of god since god would need space and time to exist and energy (at least energy and likely matter too) since for any distinction to exist (for if god exists it must be distinct from existence) there must be a place to exist, a time to exist (even all times to exist but time itself must exist). Words just fail to explain it clearly.
Nothing can't exist before spacetime of space size dimensions of zero, zero, zero (... N) and time zero (not even nothing)!
It's no wonder the faithful special needs folks leap to a faithful simple happy answer that THEIR PARTICULAR god created everything, it's too difficult to get your brain thinking about this topic even if you know quite a bit about science and aren't open to every silly idea that someone one wants to shove in there to get you to comply and fund their silly religions.
I refer you to the excellent three part BBC show "The ATOM" for additional material. It's written and narrated by a physicist who teaches Quantum Mechanics. It covers some of Feynman thoughts.
Also Feynman has some excellent presentations in audio and video in his own words that are worth watching and learning from.
The bottom line is that we don't know much about the origins of the universe with certainty but we know more than most people think we know! That which we do know rules out magic super beings who can make your inner wishes come true.
Personally I don't "believe" any origin about the universe as I require evidence and proof so why bring "belief" into it in the first place? The best theory will eventually be narrowed down even if it's not in my life time. I'm fine not knowing unlike those that need a comforting solution that fulfills their special needs to have an invisible friend.
What is clear (given the evidence we have so far about the big bang) is that it's not possible for super beings to have done created the universe especially as time and space didn't exist. Now if you believe that magical super beings can exist outside of time and space then I guess it's whatever mind poo turns your special needs kook crank.
PWL,
We may know more than most people think we know, but we also know less than what you are assuming. Time zero of the big bang is a singularity. The timeline of the early conditions is an extremely simplified model constructed to meet the demands of the horizon problem and the flatness problem. While you discuss the beginning of time and space, note that the expected correlates of the extreme conditions in the early universe, namely gravitational time dilation and a black hole type event horizon are avoided. The theories have been productive, but we really don't know that there was nothing "prior" to this singularity. As successful as the current big bang theory is, overthrowing it will require new physics and that would be exciting indeed.
So I think you go too far with "Actually the big bang hypotheses rule out the existence of god since god would need space and time to exist and energy (at least energy and likely matter too) since for any distinction to exist"
This is as tautological as some of the proofs for God, but in that sense also at least as good. 8-)
Many believers make it easy for us, by insisting that God has no mass. I'm not sure how they get that out of their books, but as far as I'm concerned, saying he has no mass is the same as saying he doesn't exist.
I would also put forward the death of Feynman as evidence against intelligent design.
regards
The comments on Comfort's blog are just a barrage of people disagreeing with him. The comments are all moderated though, so I guess he's publishing them because he sees some benefit in it. Beset from all sides, defending God. And perhaps, he imagines, giving us all enough rope to hang ourselves.
I like the Atheist Starter Kit- a list that seeks to make a nonsense of most of the stock atheist arguments simply by pre-empting them in a sarcastic tone. Who needs evidence or a logical argument?
He's gathering material for his next book. He reprints the comments. Saves him from doing much heavy lifting when writing a book. Or lifting at all.
Ray keeps harping on one of 3 issues -- (1) Atheists believe that everything came from nothing, (2) Evolution is a totally random process, and (3) Atheists have no basis for believing anything.
From his past experiences debating, he is a total loser. He cannot debate science at all, and will immediately fall back on quoting the Bible mindlessly once he starts speaking.
But his method of debating is self-serving and self-deluding. It goes like this:
Ray: Atheists believe "x", and that's ridiculous.
Atheist: Uh, no, we don't believe "X", which certainly is ridiculous, but is your own gross misunderstanding. We actually believe "Z".
Ray: (ignoring)...
Atheist: UH, do you get it?
Ray: I don't know much about "Z", but I do know that I'm going to heaven, and you're not, and that makes me a towering intellect!
Atheist: What does that have to do with the discussion?
Many of the atheists at Ray's site have just left it, because even after we explain things to him over and over, he reverts back every time to his original claims, which we re-explain are wrong. He's only apologized maybe once or twice for being totally wrong, but went right back on his apology shortly after.
As I have found out with a lot of Evangelicals, Ray is just a wishy-washy liar, and he doesn't seem to have a problem being dishonest with "enemies of God". It's obvious that he has a double-standard. We always have to tell the truth, but he can lie and get away with it, because he already knows that he's going to heaven, and that means that he can do anything he wants.
AfricanGenseis, well it matters not (pun intended) whether or not the mythical super being invisible friend to many has mass or not (light can be considered to not have mass), the laws of physics still apply to any thing, particle, wave, or form of energy that exists, otherwise it's a nothing, a no thing, an insubstantial silliness aka Mind Poo.
In addition to the axiom that existence exists there is a side axiom that in existence there are "laws of Nature" inherent in existence.
Some faith delusionals such as the Great Delusional Distortion that is Dinesh D'Souza states unequivocally that their catholic style "god" is insubstantial and "immaterial". Well if it's immaterial then it doesn't matter (look up the definition of immaterial) so what is all their fuss about it? :-)
On the question of "nothing" "before" the big bang that is an open question, however, given the theories (and evidence) that the universe started with the big bang in which spacetime also starts it's not possible for there to be a before in which nothing to exist.
It twists the brain for sure.
Imagine if you will a cone with the pointy end being the moment of the big bang at the first moment of space-time-energy which is at time > 0 where time is infinitesimally tiny. Way less than a fetosecond. The open end of the cone is NOW and we are somewhere in the plane on that open end living our tiny lives till we are recycled into bug food.
One illustration of the hypothesized big bang.
Note how existence expands from the pointy bit, the famous singularity that possibly had a random quantum burp that caused it to explode, by - for the lack of a better word - growing the very size of existence.
There isn't a there before the big bang, nor is there a before the big bang. It's impossible given what we currently know.
At least in the leading big bang theories there isn't. Actually to be accurate many of them only talk about time > 0 and not time = 0 or time < 0. Maybe it was a burp in an infinite quantum energy field, maybe it wasn't.
To suppose that energy has consciousness is required for the concept of the invisible friend, god. That assumes that god is energy. If god is immaterial as the great Delusional Distortion that is Dinesh D'Souza asserts then what is god and how can it impact our universe without following the laws of physics? A sub atomic particle? Light? Is god light? Light is immaterial as it's energy! It still obeys the laws of physics.
If a god exists then it must obey some laws of some kind of physics. Call it godaweful physics. You can't have something distinct from something else without the distinction of identity. Even god needs identity. If there is a god then it is distinct from other stuff with identity (everything else), otherwise it's just a magical claim that everything is god (which some claim) even the light photons hitting your eye as you read this word. Yea everything is god - give me a break. (Actually that's the Islamic notion, we exist in the mind of god and everything is imagined by god thus everything is god, even us heathens (remember to let them know that when they are about to behead you) thus anything can happen even if it violates the well known laws of Nature).
So if there such a thing as an outside universe to our universe, one of many multi-verse scenarios that can be imagined, it must have it's own rules of physics which the god must obey otherwise it couldn't exist.
So what if there is a guy in a lab coat in that outer universe who powered up his lab gear and produced our universe in his lab. Maybe we are in an expanding universe that to him is just a tiny ball of light that he can look at through his microscope. Does that mean that this lab god wants us to worship him? Heck, if you created a universe in a lab wouldn't you want to have your creation worship you? Bender from Futurama got to explore this while adrift in space (one of their best episodes). Does that make the lab guy a god? Because he created a universe in his lab? Does it give him god like powers? Nope, still can't control each particle in the lab.
In the end it's all just pablum for the brain since the question of who created the lab guy, the pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster or god isn't answered.
Until the likes of Roy Comfort and the Great Delusional Distortion that is Dinesh D'Souza satisfactorily answer the question (in a scientifically falsifiable manner) of who or what or how god was created god just isn't an answer, it's just wishful thinking on their part.
At least science has evidence pointing in the direction of the big bang.
It's just as likely that our universe was created by god as it is by a pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster or the lab guy, meaning it's not possible. None of them are plausible causes nor possible given the laws of physics within the known universe.
The thing that many people forget - including a great many atheists or antitheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens - is that you can prove a most negatives (but you can't prove all negatives). It's done in science all the time. In fact you couldn't have science without being able to prove the negatives are wrong! It's at the core of the scientific method as practiced around the world.
To illustrate. Prove or disprove the following: Can a man, any man, say one guy named jesus, jump from the surface of the Earth up to the Heavens (at least earth orbit) towards, say for examples sake, the surface of the Moon without cheating by using technology? Using knowledge learned by Newton we know that it's not possible. Thus it's proven that it can't be done. Thus no man or woman not even one named jesus can do that jump. Oh, that makes the myth about his ascension into heaven just that, a myth.
A well know and even an inaccurate law of Nature such as Newton's (Einstein is more accurate) can prove a negative false/impossible beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Almost every law of Nature that we know well and that has stood the test of time and the assault of science can be used to prove negatives false - even if it's not that accurate.
Gravity sucks a lot preventing man from jumping from the Earth to the Moon without technology. The fact that gravity sucks proves that jesus didn't rise up to the heavens (unless he flew in an airplane or spaceship). I guess that Jesus was a space alien after all. That sums it up just as well.
Oh, AfricanGenesis, your point about the vacuum energy needing mass to exist, while interesting, wouldn't apply "before" the big bang since there was no space nor time for the vaccum itself to exist within.
As you see many of our linguistic notions of world, science, and the universe around us go out the window when we confront the notion of the singularity that may have been the big bang. We simply can conceive of nothing not existing before the big bang.
We are trapped by language which is why science (quantum gravity physics, cosmology, big bang, ...) is so important!
pwl,
I probably only catch big headline articles about QM these days so I may be wrong, but I think with the finding that neutrinos have mass, that now covers everything. Photons have had mass for quite some time, although they have been spoken of as having zero rest mass, that may be true in the sense that they cease to exist when "stopped". Their mass and momentum have been deposited someplace.
AfricanGenesis, the point isn't whether or not light has mass, the point is that any hypothesized mythical super being invisible friend known as "god" would need to obey some kind of laws of some kind of physics - including the physics of our universe, otherwise the existence axiom and identity axiom would be violated destroying the universe in a blinding flash.
How could such hypothesized super being affect our universe as it's proponents suggest it can with their supposed prayers and miracles that shamefully violate the laws of physics?
Also, where the heck is the brain of this mythical god? As we know for certain from information science any - and I do mean any to cover all - information processing systems including biological and all non-biological systems MUST have a brain somewhere in some kind of existence in order to process the information that brains process. No god brain no god.
From a number of works including "A New Kind of Science" by Stephen Wolfram we know for certain that the Universe is a computing system. So is this computer the brain of the mythical god? Even it if was it wouldn't help you get what you want when you pray for something (or is that prey) since the speed of "c" (light) limits any being (imaginary or real) or even the universe itself from actually being omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient.
So again where is the brain of god and under what physics does it operate?
It's up to those that have the special need for there to be an invisible super being to propose a proper scientific hypothesis that is falsifiable for their super being. Then it's up to them to provide the evidence for each and every attribute or characteristic they propose for their god.
Part of the reason that this has been difficult is that there are so many gods out there, pretty much at least one for each believer.
Another reason is that the delusionals don't think the same way as rational critical thinking people do. They don't want to actually confront the overwhelming evidence that there isn't a god except the one they conceive of in their delusional brains.
Where is the brain of god? Only in the brains and thoughts of delusionals with special needs for an invisible friend.
So it's true that they've got "god" in them, just not in the way that they believe. It's just a concept kept alive in their thoughts through the firing of neurons that pump happy drugs into their pleasure centers. Many of them literally are addicted to god!
Fortunately I keep a good separation between my addictive entertainment (e.g. Lord of the Rings) and objective reality.
The Zombie Cult of Jesus needs your LIVE BRAINS to SPREAD! Careful what you think for you might get the mind virus of jesus and become a blithering idiot! Keep it real! Embrace the Objective Reality of Nature Full On! Join the Enlightenment!
pwl,
So many proposed properties of God are not physically possible but, we can't be as sure about existance "outside" or "before" our universe as you claim to be. There may well be a way to influence or initiate the start of a universe. Once we nail down the physical laws a little better, we might want to avoid initiating one ourselves. Hopefully, physical laws will preclude it until the universe gets much closer to heat death.
Here's why we should ignore Ray Comfort. On his blog in response to a commenter who asked why Ray usually ignores any questions posed to him by atheists, he said this:
"...I have a nunber of atheist's saying the same thing but they are nobodys, and have no credibility."
To me that just sums up Comfort's mindset. He isn't open-minded, he isn't capable of reason or critical thinking. In fact he doesn't want to engage in these activities. He has "The truth" or at least as he sees it. It would be one thing if he actually engaged with atheists, but he does not. His blog is purely a place for him to advertise his own self-importance and legitimacy. "See, look at all these atheists commenting on my words - that must mean I'm saying something important!".
I suppose there may be value in commenting there in case there are other Christians who might be slightly open-minded, but probably his sycophantic followers have the same closed mindset. And besides there are much better and more worthwhile forums for doing this.
I think we should boycott his blog and ignore him. Atheists are feeding this blog and keeping it alive. But Comfort isn't listening and isn't going to listen. Without atheist comments, his blog would dry up. And why should atheists waste their time posting when Comfort doesn't even have the courtesy to properly address their questions? It's rude and disrespectful.
So I'm glad PZ is ignoring him and hope that he continues to do so. If Comfort doesn't think atheists have any credibility than we can play that right back at him.
Set some debate guide lines. Like requiring intellectual honesty and citations for claims.
I would probably just release a statement that there can be no debate until the other side agrees to at least intellectual honesty.
Pardon me, I just did a spit take. Comfort's entire spiel is based on intellectual dishonesty.
If he was capable of being intellectually honest then... aww, forget it.
*face palm*
Naivete is not a virtue.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Yes I do agree with Ray Comfort.
AfricianGenesis, be very clear that I'm not claiming anything. I believe nothing not even nothing! I'm simply stating hypotheses that can be tested such as using Newton (aka gravity really sucks) to prove that jesus didn't fly up to the heavens (space) unless he had a space ship, or such as using the leading big bang theories hypotheses to comprehend that there was no before due to there being no time and there being no there either since there was no space.
Sure anyone can imagine whatever they want: gods, multiverses, outsides, and whatnot. It's all mind poo unless there is evidence and proof (or it's disproven).
There is a saying that "anything is possible" that's very common. It's incorrect, or inaccurate since it's missing the context of objective reality. A more accurate phrasing is "anything that is possible in objective reality is possible and everything that is impossible is in fact impossible and won't happen so give up all hope and face the facts of life... or not and live a life of delusional belief stricken bliss."
Discussing possibilities usually is just like masturbation, while it is pleasurable it may not produce the birth of any new results into being.
Lacking a proper scientific hypothesis that can be tested for their invisible friend, the mythical god, the faith freaks are simply masturbating their lives away in a chemically addictive belief bliss.
It's worse than that though since there are many proofs that the attributes of gods can't occur in our universe given the already known and well tested laws of Nature. Simply put Nature prevents any sort of god like the 10,000 or so gods believed in. The only exception are those pretend that the universe is an inanimate non-sentient god. (Useful to remember when traveling in hostile crowds).
By the properties of "god" not being physically possible it's 100% certain that no gods with those attributes can exist in our universe - this hypothesis is based upon the well known and well tested laws of Nature.
It's unlikely that we'll be creating any universes. The fantasies of Star Trek, Men in Black, and LHC aside the environment in a black hole isn't exactly conducive to a universe.
So you can think that we are in a bubble universe and that there are others out there but until you have proof and evidence it's just fantasy or a non-proven hypothesis at best.
Evidence rules Science! (Well there is a lot of "consensus science" going on but that's besides the point, hard core science requires actual evidence and proofs for or against to back it up.
You don't need the big bang to disprove gods. Newton and Einstein and Quantum Physics and water surface tension and critical thinking skills and keeping one's brain in one's head helps. Also letting go of the childish need for a special invisible friend makes a big difference. Being open to live in objective reality and experience all that life and Nature have to offer can provide a rich and abundant life. Nature may not always comply as many find out daily. Life is what it is and isn't the fantasy that the belief stricken delusionals want it to be.
The history of life is truly amazing. We are living systems organized out of material atoms. We are biological. We are multi-cellular. We have evolved in so many ways. We have centermetered (ok inched does sound better) our way out of the salty sea and muck to form cooperating symbiotic systems within ourselves. We are information processing systems that are self aware! We are intelligent (ok some of us anyhow). We are temporal. We live and we die and we rot and are recycled. Our atoms come from generations of stars and super novai existing and exploding and moving till we get to have them in our bodies for short periods of time. Our parts add up to more than the sum of the whole. We are conscious and we are aware of our existence (a basic axiom) and existence itself (another axiom) and we are aware that we are distinct from others and other things, that we have identity (another axiom). We are amazing. We are faulty. We are frail and strong. We can do harm or good. We are complex and simple. We are so many contradictions. We inhabit the house of language which also shapes our perceptions. We can be destroyed by our or others thoughts. We have a beginning, a middle and an end the times and durations of which are usually unknown to us. We are emotional. We are fighters and lovers. Wise and dangerous. The list goes on and one.
Then we are mythologists and most humans are "believers" in their mythologies to such an extent that many will kill or die to defend or enforce those "beliefs". We have "minds" that want to preserve the "self" at almost any cost.
Yet we can transform. We can embrace The Enlightenment. We can come to reason. We can come to think for ourselves. We can be free thinkers not following the heard over the cliff with the lemmings. We can adapt. These are hard fought skills. Skills learned over millions of years of evolution. We and our continuous ancestors who have scratched out an existence and a living on Planet Earth for millions of years have a deep wisdom about the world we find ourselves inhabiting. Connecting with our natural heritage is a grounded activity that lets us experience our natural human spirit (as in "he had spirit when he ran the race" - no supernatural implication intended or implied).
Live and embrace the wonderful time we have while here in existence with an active consciousness. The universe is "computing" us, computing our intelligence with trillions of computations each microsecond as chemicals do their thing, as cells do their wet work, as our brains compute so emerges us, as the laws of Nature give us the gift of life as a self aware intelligence.
As a systems scientist with wide interests and deep thoughts a perspective connecting with Nature can develop that brings one closer to objective reality while keeping a wary eye on "belief" and it's debilitating effects upon our lives.
Stay real. Peace.
ps. All ideas expressed are hypotheses that can be challenged, and if a more accurate representation is presented that corrects any defects, it will be adopted. Just as our bodies evolved our knowledge based does!
ps. Gravity Sucks is an approximation of Newton's equations of Gravity which are a subset or approximation of Einstein's Relativity which are a subset or approximation of ___... ad infinitum as needed for your application. However, gravity sucks works just fine to keep jesus on the ground and out of the heavens, just as "really dead humans don't rise up to be zombie jesus or lazarus" keeps myths myths!
You need a therapist to help you with that lisp Dave.
... and a different sort of therapist to help him with his mental disorder.
I would agree Dave that that believe in "god" have done "abominable works" and that somehow their precious delusional beliefs don't prevent those "abominable works" as they are alleged to do by your ilk.
Isn't it sad that at your age you're still in need of an invisible friend Dave? Grow up and face the facts of real life.
and a hooker
And a hooker?!??
Hell, screw the therapist, he/she will be screwing him most likely.
Last night I watched the YouTube clip of the RRS handing Ray and Kirk Cameron's asses to them. They were so obviously outmatched and aware of it, and the looks on their faces were priceless.
Heck, I even felt bad for them. They were like two little kids who'd tried to start an argument with adults and then realised exactly how little they knew about what it was they were discussing. But they just kept on trying anyway, dodging the questions they couldn't answer and giving answers to questions that weren't asked.
Don't take Ray seriously. PZ couldn't be more accurate than describing him as a clown.
T.J.~? ;-)
You want to watch out for those clown types though. They're dangerous.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Yes I do agree with Ray Comfort." -- Dave
Not I! Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of Ignorance, I will fear no borrowed error: For Reason is with me; Logic and Evidence comfort me. My brain preparest counterarguments aplenty for me to quell the baldly asserted piffle of my intellectual enemies, filling my head with understanding; My objectively-grounded confidence runneth over.
@154: Ad hominem.
Where can I earn my doctorate in godlessness, so that I might become a "Professor of Atheism," too?
"Where can I earn my doctorate in godlessness, so that I might become a 'Professor of Atheism, too?" -- Steve
No doctorate or any other formal degree of any kind is necessary for one to profess atheism; all that is needed is for one to exercise thoughtful, intellectually honest critical reasoning for one's own self.
The problem with Ray Comfort is that he purports to profess theism by attacking straw man arguments for atheism which atheists do not make (for one example, atheists do not declare that the universe arose from nothing [ex nihilo] -- only theists declare that); his doing that is neither thoughtful nor intellectually honest.
Really, no one should read his blog. If you dislike him then fight him by not giving him hits.