An Open Letter to Atheists

[SwordOfStZip]

It’s eye opening just how shambolic the atheist position is in this discussion.

If the universe were totally chaotic, science would be impossible. We build satellites, decode genomes, and predict eclipses precisely because the universe follows stable, intelligible laws - expressible in mathematics. The claim that it’s “totally chaotic” collapses the very foundation of physics and reasoned inquiry.

More than that if it were totally chaotic you could not have functioning organisms.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

It’s eye opening just how shambolic the atheist position is in this discussion.

I don't know what the atheist position is per se.

If the universe were totally chaotic, science would be impossible. We build satellites, decode genomes, and predict eclipses precisely because the universe follows stable, intelligible laws - expressible in mathematics. The claim that it’s “totally chaotic” collapses the very foundation of physics and reasoned inquiry.

You said why is the Universe not chaotic? Its chaotic in its very nature.

All you have to do is look in your own life and things happening around you to see the chaotic nature of it. The earth alone is an asylum of chaotic events happening all the time let alone the Universe as a whole.

Your reply is less a counter-argument than a reflexive polemic — a kind of rhetorical flailing cloaked in the language of superiority. What’s striking is not your rejection of theism, but the breezy certainty with which you dismiss what you don’t appear to have seriously engaged.Let’s clarify something fundamental: pointing out that we do not fully know why the universe exhibits rational order is not an argument against theistic inference — it is, in fact, a deep philosophical invitation. That the universe is mathematically intelligible to the human mind is not a trivial observation. It is, as Albert Einstein admitted, “a miracle that the universe is comprehensible at all.”This is not a matter of spotting “patterns” and jumping to conclusions, but of confronting the foundational fact that physics — and by extension, all empirical science — presupposes an order that is not itself explained by physics. Why, in a universe allegedly born of chaos, should the structure of spacetime obey precise mathematical relationships? Why does the abstract language of mathematics, developed in the human mind, map so seamlessly onto the external world?You may scoff at such questions, but many of the greatest scientific minds did not. Thinkers like Kurt Gödel, Roger Penrose, and Werner Heisenberg recognised the philosophical depth of these inquiries. Theism, at the very least, offers a coherent ontological ground: that rational order flows from rational source — from Logos.Your own position, by contrast, seems to require that mind arises from matter, reason from randomness, and consciousness from brute unreason — a conceptual chain that, as yet, lacks even the semblance of an adequate explanation.So no, this is not “the stupidest, laziest superstition.” It is an ancient philosophical tradition, intellectually robust enough to sustain millennia of dialogue. If you're going to dismiss it, do so with arguments, not with adolescent sneers.

But none of that explains why you believe in the man made story that you do. A story that anybody not brought up with it would hold to be ridiculous.

The two are not connected at all.

That's why I don't use the word atheist to describe myself. Being non-religious doesn't necessarily mean somebody doesn't believe in consciousness.

Fundamentalist religious people have an arrogant idea that they know things everyone else doesn't which of course they don't Sir.

 

[Tiger]

I don't know what the atheist position is per se.

The atheist position in its most common form, is the belief that the universe and everything within it - including life, consciousness, morality and order - arose without the involvement of any divine intelligence, purpose or supernatural natural cause.

This position is not neutral. It is a positive commitment to explaining all of reality - from physics to ethics - with no reference to a Creator, Designer, or transcendent Mind. It is a comprehensive worldview, just like theism, but one that insists intelligence only arises after matter, never before it.

 

[Haven]

It is a positive commitment to explaining all of reality - from physics

Cosmology and particle physics are carrying the actual burden here.

to ethics

Famously kickstarted by the ancient Greeks.

- with no reference to a Creator, Designer, or transcendent Mind

Why must we constantly jump to extraordinary explainations like gods just to bridge a current gap in knowledge?

 

[AN2]

Your reply is less a counter-argument than a reflexive polemic — a kind of rhetorical flailing cloaked in the language of superiority. What’s striking is not your rejection of theism, but the breezy certainty with which you dismiss what you don’t appear to have seriously engaged.

Let’s clarify something fundamental: pointing out that we do not fully know why the universe exhibits rational order is not an argument against theistic inference — it is, in fact, a deep philosophical invitation. That the universe is mathematically intelligible to the human mind is not a trivial observation. It is, as Albert Einstein admitted, “a miracle that the universe is comprehensible at all.”

This is not a matter of spotting “patterns” and jumping to conclusions, but of confronting the foundational fact that physics — and by extension, all empirical science — presupposes an order that is not itself explained by physics. Why, in a universe allegedly born of chaos, should the structure of spacetime obey precise mathematical relationships? Why does the abstract language of mathematics, developed in the human mind, map so seamlessly onto the external world?

You may scoff at such questions, but many of the greatest scientific minds did not. Thinkers like Kurt Gödel, Roger Penrose, and Werner Heisenberg recognised the philosophical depth of these inquiries. Theism, at the very least, offers a coherent ontological ground: that rational order flows from rational source — from Logos.

Your own position, by contrast, seems to require that mind arises from matter, reason from randomness, and consciousness from brute unreason — a conceptual chain that, as yet, lacks even the semblance of an adequate explanation.

So no, this is not “the stupidest, laziest superstition.” It is an ancient philosophical tradition, intellectually robust enough to sustain millennia of dialogue. If you're going to dismiss it, do so with arguments, not with adolescent sneers.

Why do you cite well-known scientists as if it's some boon for your God belief? (flat-earthers do the same)

You name drop Einstein but Einstein thought that you're weak and childish -

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

 

[SwordOfStZip]

It’s eye opening just how shambolic the atheist position is in this discussion.

If the universe were totally chaotic, science would be impossible. We build satellites, decode genomes, and predict eclipses precisely because the universe follows stable, intelligible laws - expressible in mathematics. The claim that it’s “totally chaotic” collapses the very foundation of physics and reasoned inquiry.

Atheists would say that people are in general Theists for pre-rational reasons primarily psychological and I would say that is true but does not negate the rationality of Theism.

The thing is though people are also in atheists in general for pre-rational reasons that are again primarily psychological.

The two main reasons I believe that people are atheists in the West today are the so-called "Problem of Evil" and not wanting to have a boss over them which can take both "Rightwing" and "Leftwing" forms. If you want to address atheism therefore I think it would be best to start with those issues rather than approaching things in a strictly rational philosophical manner.

 

[AN2]

How many times do you need to be told that that chap is a charlatan James?

He’s your lazy ‘go to’ when you can’t manage any arguments or your own.

Oh the irony

I specifically posted a link to that video in reply to your "Information" regurgitation, which is a favourite of creationist carnie Stephen Meyer

 

[Tiger]

You said why is the Universe not chaotic? It’s chaotic in its very nature.

All you have to do is look in your own life and things happening around you to see the chaotic nature of it. The earth alone is an asylum of chaotic events happening all the time let alone the Universe as a whole.

We’re not talking about your love life here Myles

You've misunderstood the question on a fundamental (almost child-like) level. When I asked why the universe isn’t chaotic, I was not referring to the unpredictability of daily life or the messiness of human experience. I'm talking about the deep structure of reality — the fact that the universe operates according to precise, consistent, mathematically describable laws.

Earthquakes, storms, even your everyday misfortunes may appear chaotic, but they're all governed by discoverable principles — plate tectonics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, etc. The very possibility of calling something “chaotic” presupposes a backdrop of order against which chaos can be measured.

If the universe were truly chaotic in the ontological sense — without structure, without logic, without cause — not only would science be impossible, but so would your ability to make this argument. You're not describing a chaotic universe; you're relying on an ordered one to even frame the discussion.

 

[Hermit]

Why must we constantly jump to extraordinary explainations like gods just to bridge a current gap in knowledge?

There is no explanation more extraordinary than the proposition that physical reality created itself from nothing. There are two options: (1) physical reality was created or (2) physical reality created itself. The latter is impossible because something cannot create itself or be the cause of its own existence. So that leaves the former as the only possible explanation, regardless of how extraordinary it may seem to atheists.

 

[AN2]

Atheists would say that people are in general Theists for pre-rational reasons primarily psychological and I would say that is true but does not negate the rationality of Theism.

Rationality is the quality of being guided by or based on reason. In this regard, a person acts rationally if they have a good reason for what they do, or a belief is rational if it is based on strong evidence.

 

[Haven]

There is no explanation more extraordinary than the proposition that physical reality created itself from nothing.

That is actually not what is proposed. We simply do not know, right now, how physical reality was created, at the exact moment of what is termed the Big Bang. We know that if we extrapolate backwards in time, we end up with an infinite singularity at some point in time. But we don't know what happened as existing physics breaks down at a point in time before this possible singularity may, or may not, have existed.

Thats it. We may know yet come to know what happened, as cosmology has made huge strides over the past 100 years in terms of our understanding of the universe.

There are two options: (1) physical reality was created or (2) physical reality created itself. The latter is impossible because something cannot create itself or be the cause of its own existence. So that leaves the former as the only possible explanation, regardless of how extraordinary it may seem to atheists.

Physical reality obviously came into existance. Beyond that, we cant yet say we know exactly how or why. But we dont need to fill that gap with "Duh, God!".

 

[Tiger]

That is actually not what is proposed.

Actually many physicists and popular science writers have proposed that the universe could come from "nothing" — see Lawrence Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing or Stephen Hawking’s claim that “because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

This position is not just extraordinary — it's self-contradictory. You cannot have laws or fields (like gravity or quantum fields) in a state of "nothing." Nothing, by definition, has no properties, no potential, no causal capacity. If something exists, it's not nothing. The evasive move is redefining “nothing” as a quantum vacuum or as mathematical potential — which are, in fact, something.

We simply do not know, right now, how physical reality was created, at the exact moment of what is termed the Big Bang.

Here you are quietly confessing the central weakness of the entire materialist explanation. The moment of supposed “origin” remains beyond the reach of empirical science. This is not a small oversight; it's a gaping epistemological chasm at the very point where science most needs to be solid.

Science proceeds from what exists. It presupposes laws, regularity, time, matter, and minds. When it reaches a boundary where these things break down, science doesn’t become superior — it becomes silent.

We know that if we extrapolate backwards in time, we end up with an infinite singularity at some point in time.

This is an abstract mathematical construct, not a physical explanation. Singularities are not “things” but the breakdown of the known laws of physics. They do not explain the beginning; they signal the inability to explain it.

Moreover, extrapolation backwards doesn’t explain what is doing the expanding, why it expands, or how finely-tuned conditions arise from an event with no physical precursors.

But we don't know what happened as existing physics breaks down at a point in time before this possible singularity may, or may not, have existed.

Exactly. And when physics breaks down, you are no longer doing physics. You are standing on metaphysical ground — and refusing to admit it.

Claiming that “we don’t know yet” what happened is a profession of faith in scientism: the unproven and unprovable belief that science will eventually explain everything, including its own foundational assumptions.

Thats it. We may know yet come to know what happened, as cosmology has made huge strides over the past 100 years in terms of our understanding of the universe.

This is not an argument. It’s a promissory note written on the bank of the unknown, perpetually cashed by people unwilling to admit the limitations of their worldview.

To say that science may one day answer the big questions is to admit that right now, it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t — and cannot — then one should stop pretending it replaces the metaphysical questions posed by theists.

 

[AN2]

.

That is actually not what is proposed.

The "something from nothing" AKA Big Bang is a lie that they oft-repeat

Returning to the scene of one of @Tiger's recent cataclysmic failures, here is a video that he posted of Stephen Meyer repeating the same lie -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ideGFF6QR0&t=11m8s

And don't forget, to the unsuspecting, Meyer is someone who knows what he's talking about (and not a creationist carnie)

We simply do not know, right now, how physical reality was created, at the exact moment of what is termed the Big Bang. We know that if we extrapolate backwards in time, we end up with an infinite singularity at some point in time. But we don't know what happened as existing physics breaks down at a point in time before this possible singularity may, or may not, have existed.

Thats it. We may know yet come to know what happened, as cosmology has made huge strides over the past 100 years in terms of our understanding of the universe.


Physical reality obviously came into existance. Beyond that, we cant yet say we know exactly how or why. But we dont need to fill that gap with "Duh, God!".

 

[Tiger]

.

The "something from nothing" AKA Big Bang is a lie that they oft-repeat

Returning to the scene of one of @Tiger's recent cataclysmic failures, here is a video that he posted of Stephen Meyer repeating the same lie -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ideGFF6QR0&t=11m8s

And don't forget, to the unsuspecting, Meyer is someone who knows what he's talking about (and not a creationist carnie)

If the Big Bang didn’t arise from nothing, then what exactly do you believe it arose from - and how does your view account for the origin of that ‘something?’

Also, if space, time, matter and energy all originated at the Big Bang, and the causal explanations require time and change, what kind of cause - if any - can exist outside of time and space to initiate the universe, and how do you propose we describe such a cause without invoking metaphysics?

 

[Haven]

Actually many physicists and popular science writers have proposed that the universe could come from "nothing" — see Lawrence Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing or Stephen Hawking’s claim that “because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

But its not whats actually proposed by the theory or Lambda-CDM model.

This position is not just extraordinary — it's self-contradictory. You cannot have laws or fields (like gravity or quantum fields) in a state of "nothing." Nothing, by definition, has no properties, no potential, no causal capacity. If something exists, it's not nothing. The evasive move is redefining “nothing” as a quantum vacuum or as mathematical potential — which are, in fact, something.

Thats not the position of Big Bang theory or the Lambda-CDM model.

Here you are quietly confessing the central weakness of the entire materialist explanation. The moment of supposed “origin” remains beyond the reach of empirical science. This is not a small oversight; it's a gaping epistemological chasm at the very point where science most needs to be solid.

Beyond the reach of current empirical science.

Science proceeds from what exists. It presupposes laws, regularity, time, matter, and minds.

Science doesnt presuppose physical laws, regularity, time, matter, and minds. Thats the antithesis of what science is about.

When it reaches a boundary where these things break down, science doesn’t become superior — it becomes silent.

No, it starts to probe those boundaries.

This is an abstract mathematical construct, not a physical explanation. Singularities are not “things” but the breakdown of the known laws of physics.

I wasnt putting it forward as such.

They do not explain the beginning; they signal the inability to explain it.

A current inability.

Moreover, extrapolation backwards doesn’t explain what is doing the expanding, why it expands, or how finely-tuned conditions arise from an event with no physical precursors.

We dont need to immediately plug a gap in knowledge with talk of gods.

Exactly. And when physics breaks down, you are no longer doing physics. You are standing on metaphysical ground — and refusing to admit it.

When current physics breaks down, you mean. Our understanding is increasing all the time.

Claiming that “we don’t know yet” what happened is a profession of faith in scientism: the unproven and unprovable belief that science will eventually explain everything, including its own foundational assumptions.

So far science has done a good job in explaining a lot of things. I'm willing to wait and see rather than say "Duh, God!" and call it a day.

This is not an argument. It’s a promissory note written on the bank of the unknown, perpetually cashed by people unwilling to admit the limitations of their worldview.

Its reasonable to assume so based on scientific progress to date.

To say that science may one day answer the big questions is to admit that right now, it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t — and cannot — then one should stop pretending it replaces the metaphysical questions posed by theists.

It answers an awful lot of big questions. And more all the time.

 

[AN2]

If the Big Bang didn’t arise from nothing, then what exactly do you believe it arose from - and how does your view account for the origin of that ‘something?’

Why did the Universe (as we know it) expand, is that what you're asking? It's not known. Why is it continuing to expand today, again, not fully understood, although we do have a name for it (dark energy)

Also, if space, time, matter and energy all originated at the Big Bang, and the causal explanations require time and change, what kind of cause - if any - can exist outside of time and space to initiate the universe, and how do you propose we describe such a cause without invoking metaphysics?

If time itself was emergent from the Big Bang, what sense does it make to talk about a before?

All that can really be said about the Big Bang is that it was an event (for which there's lots of evidence) not that it was a beginning

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You've misunderstood the question on a fundamental (almost child-like) level.

No not really.

If you consider the Universe to be governed by order then you cannot explain the chaotic nature of said Universe.

You say things "appear" chaotic but are governed by principles yet you cannot explain the clearly chaotic nature of the natural World.

You fall back on a story your parents and teachers told you. A story that explains nothing about the chaos that surrounds you.

Its something that makes you feel better amidst the uncertainty that terrifies fearful people like you Sir.

 

[Tiger]

Why did the Universe (as we know it) expand, is that what you're asking? It's not known. Why is it continuing to expand today, again, not fully understood, although we do have a name for it (dark energy)

The question posed wasn't about why the universe is expanding — that’s a secondary issue. The question was about what the Big Bang arose from — i.e., what was the origin of the universe’s existence itself, not what drives its current expansion.

You answered as if the inquiry was about cosmological mechanics — dark energy, inflation, etc. — but the question concerns ontological origins: What caused the Big Bang, and what did it arise from, if not nothing?

Stating “we don’t know” or pointing to placeholders like “dark energy” avoids the central problem:

If the universe didn't come from nothing, then what pre-existed it — and how did that pre-existing ‘something’ arise?

Further, appealing to dark energy is a distraction. Dark energy is a label for an observed effect (accelerating expansion), not an explanation of origins. It's a placeholder, not an answer.

The reality is that invoking unknowns and labeling them with terms like ‘dark energy’ is just your version of a ‘God of the gaps’ — but without even the metaphysical courage to admit that your entire worldview rests on foundational mysteries you cannot explain

If time itself was emergent from the Big Bang, what sense does it make to talk about a before?

All that can really be said about the Big Bang is that it was an event (for which there's lots of evidence) not that it was a beginning

This is a well-known question — but it misunderstands the nature of causality and existence. You're right that, within the current framework of physical cosmology, time as we know it began at the Big Bang. But if you claim that “all that can be said is that the Big Bang was an event,” you’ve already introduced a contradiction.

An event by definition presupposes change — a transition from one state to another — and that presupposes time. So saying the Big Bang was an “event” while denying a temporal framework is self-refuting.

Now to the deeper question: If causality within time collapses at the boundary of the Big Bang, then what kind of cause could operate outside of time?

This leads us, unavoidably, into metaphysics — not as a matter of speculation, but as a matter of logic. A timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause is precisely what is required if the totality of space, time, matter, and energy had a beginning. That’s not a theological sleight of hand — it’s a deduction based on the limits of physics.

Even Nobel Prize–winning physicists like Roger Penrose and cosmologists like Alexander Vilenkin have stated explicitly that physics cannot explain the absolute origin — it breaks down at the singularity. Vilenkin famously said:

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

And with a beginning, you must ask: What initiated it?

Physics can't describe what happened “before” time, because physics is a science of time-bound processes. If you disallow metaphysics, you are left with no tools to answer the question — only silence dressed up in semantics.

If you insist on calling the Big Bang merely “an event,” then what was the event a transition from — and by what principle do you claim that transition happened without cause, time, or reason?

 

[Tiger]

No not really.

If you consider the Universe to be governed by order then you cannot explain the chaotic nature of said Universe.

You say things "appear" chaotic but are governed by principles yet you cannot explain the clearly chaotic nature of the natural World.

You fall back on a story your parents and teachers told you. A story that explains nothing about the chaos that surrounds you.

Its something that makes you feel better amidst the uncertainty that terrifies fearful people like you Sir.

Myles, I'm going to try to be nice about this. I hope you appreciate my patience

You’ve mistaken two entirely different categories: human experience and cosmic order.

You conflate the unpredictable events of daily human life — illness, accidents, misfortunes — with the fundamental structure of the cosmos, which is precisely not chaotic. The distinction isn't trivial — it's essential.

The question was: Why does the universe obey precise, discoverable, repeatable mathematical laws rather than behaving in a random, disorderly fashion?

Gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics — these aren’t metaphors for emotional turbulence. They're mathematical symmetries and constants that govern stars, atoms, galaxies, and even your biology with unfathomable precision. You wouldn't be able to make a phone call or cross a bridge safely if this weren't so.

If the universe were chaotic in the way you describe — in its foundation — science itself would be impossible. There would be no laws to study, no regularities to exploit, no cause-and-effect. The fact that you can sit comfortably on a device built on quantum physics to accuse people of "fear" is ironic — because you're leaning entirely on the ordered structure you're denying.

As for the story you accuse me of "falling back on" — no, it’s not fairy tales from childhood. It’s the recognition, shared by many of history’s greatest scientists — Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Maxwell — that the rational intelligibility of the universe is something in need of explanation, not denial.

So here's the challenge:

If the universe is not governed by rational, ordered principles, how do you account for the intelligibility of mathematics in describing nature — and how do you explain your own ability to trust reason in the first place?

That’s not fear. That’s philosophy — and science at its highest level.

 

[AN2]

The question posed wasn't about why the universe is expanding — that’s a secondary issue. The question was about what the Big Bang arose from — i.e., what was the origin of the universe’s existence itself, not what drives its current expansion.

You answered as if the inquiry was about cosmological mechanics — dark energy, inflation, etc. — but the question concerns ontological origins: What caused the Big Bang, and what did it arise from, if not nothing?

Stating “we don’t know” or pointing to placeholders like “dark energy” avoids the central problem:

If the universe didn't come from nothing, then what pre-existed it — and how did that pre-existing ‘something’ arise?

Further, appealing to dark energy is a distraction. Dark energy is a label for an observed effect (accelerating expansion), not an explanation of origins. It's a placeholder, not an answer.

The reality is that invoking unknowns and labeling them with terms like ‘dark energy’ is just your version of a ‘God of the gaps’ — but without even the metaphysical courage to admit that your entire worldview rests on foundational mysteries you cannot explain



This is a well-known question — but it misunderstands the nature of causality and existence. You're right that, within the current framework of physical cosmology, time as we know it began at the Big Bang. But if you claim that “all that can be said is that the Big Bang was an event,” you’ve already introduced a contradiction.

An event by definition presupposes change — a transition from one state to another — and that presupposes time. So saying the Big Bang was an “event” while denying a temporal framework is self-refuting.

Now to the deeper question: If causality within time collapses at the boundary of the Big Bang, then what kind of cause could operate outside of time?

This leads us, unavoidably, into metaphysics — not as a matter of speculation, but as a matter of logic. A timeless, spaceless, immaterial cause is precisely what is required if the totality of space, time, matter, and energy had a beginning. That’s not a theological sleight of hand — it’s a deduction based on the limits of physics.

Even Nobel Prize–winning physicists like Roger Penrose and cosmologists like Alexander Vilenkin have stated explicitly that physics cannot explain the absolute origin — it breaks down at the singularity. Vilenkin famously said:

And with a beginning, you must ask: What initiated it?

Physics can't describe what happened “before” time, because physics is a science of time-bound processes. If you disallow metaphysics, you are left with no tools to answer the question — only silence dressed up in semantics.

If you insist on calling the Big Bang merely “an event,” then what was the event a transition from — and by what principle do you claim that transition happened without cause, time, or reason?

If you want to talk about scientific theories such as the Big Bang or evolution, then talk about them, don't conflate them with origin stories, as you always do. It's incredibly tedious

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

No way!

As Albert Einstein admitted:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

 

[AN2]

No way!

Way!

 

[Tiger]

If you want to talk about scientific theories such as the Big Bang or evolution, then talk about them, don't conflate them with origin stories, as you always do. It's incredibly tedious

Your problem James is that you’re too stupid to know why that statement is stupid.

You're confusing your ignorant irritation with insight.

You accuse me of “conflating” scientific theories like the Big Bang and evolution with questions of origin — but that objection reveals more about your discomfort than about the validity of the questions being asked.

Let’s be clear: the Big Bang theory is by definition a theory of origins. Not of what came after the universe began, but of the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy. The moment you bring up the Big Bang, you are already in the realm of metaphysical inquiry whether you like it or not — because science itself hits a boundary condition there. Causality, as we understand it, presupposes time. But time, in Big Bang cosmology, begins at the Big Bang. That is not a “story” — it’s a conceptual wall.

When I press on that boundary and ask what kind of cause could exist outside of time, or why the universe is intelligible at all, you throw your hands up and call it “tedious.” That’s not an argument. That’s an evasion.

So let’s be honest: you haven’t even engaged the scientific problems — the lack of a tested mechanism for abiogenesis, the problem of fine-tuning, the issue of information encoded in DNA, the breakdown of physical law at the singularity. You’ve sidestepped them with sighs and accusations of “tedium.”

Tedious to you, perhaps — but intellectually vital for anyone actually interested in understanding why anything exists at all.

Now:

If you're not prepared to discuss the metaphysical implications of science, then you’re not prepared to discuss science at its deepest level.

 

[AN2]

Myles, I'm going to try to be nice about this. I hope you appreciate my patience

You’ve mistaken two entirely different categories: human experience and cosmic order.

You conflate the unpredictable events of daily human life — illness, accidents, misfortunes — with the fundamental structure of the cosmos, which is precisely not chaotic. The distinction isn't trivial — it's essential.

The question was: Why does the universe obey precise, discoverable, repeatable mathematical laws rather than behaving in a random, disorderly fashion?

Gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics — these aren’t metaphors for emotional turbulence. They're mathematical symmetries and constants that govern stars, atoms, galaxies, and even your biology with unfathomable precision. You wouldn't be able to make a phone call or cross a bridge safely if this weren't so.

If the universe were chaotic in the way you describe — in its foundation — science itself would be impossible. There would be no laws to study, no regularities to exploit, no cause-and-effect. The fact that you can sit comfortably on a device built on quantum physics to accuse people of "fear" is ironic — because you're leaning entirely on the ordered structure you're denying.

As for the story you accuse me of "falling back on" — no, it’s not fairy tales from childhood. It’s the recognition, shared by many of history’s greatest scientists — Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Maxwell — that the rational intelligibility of the universe is something in need of explanation, not denial.

So here's the challenge:

If the universe is not governed by rational, ordered principles, how do you account for the intelligibility of mathematics in describing nature — and how do you explain your own ability to trust reason in the first place?

That’s not fear. That’s philosophy — and science at its highest level.

The Universe is certainly quite chaotic to humans, and is thought to be marching inexorably towards ultimate randomness and disorder

 

[AN2]

Your problem James is that you’re too stupid to know why that statement is stupid.

You're confusing your ignorant irritation with insight.

You accuse me of “conflating” scientific theories like the Big Bang and evolution with questions of origin

Yes, because that's precisely what you do

And then you start babbling about "philosophical sidesteps", "metaphysics" etc.

— but that objection reveals more about your discomfort than about the validity of the questions being asked.

Let’s be clear: the Big Bang theory is by definition a theory of origins. Not of what came after the universe began, but of the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy. The moment you bring up the Big Bang, you are already in the realm of metaphysical inquiry whether you like it or not — because science itself hits a boundary condition there. Causality, as we understand it, presupposes time. But time, in Big Bang cosmology, begins at the Big Bang. That is not a “story” — it’s a conceptual wall.

When I press on that boundary and ask what kind of cause could exist outside of time, or why the universe is intelligible at all, you throw your hands up and call it “tedious.” That’s not an argument. That’s an evasion.

So let’s be honest: you haven’t even engaged the scientific problems — the lack of a tested mechanism for abiogenesis, the problem of fine-tuning, the issue of information encoded in DNA, the breakdown of physical law at the singularity. You’ve sidestepped them with sighs and accusations of “tedium.”

Tedious to you, perhaps — but intellectually vital for anyone actually interested in understanding why anything exists at all.

Now:

If you're not prepared to discuss the metaphysical implications of science, then you’re not prepared to discuss science at its deepest level.

 

[Tiger]

The Universe is certainly quite chaotic to humans, and is thought to be marching inexorably towards ultimate randomness and disorder

“Stoopid is as stoopid does”

You’re conflating thermodynamic entropy with fundamental chaos, which are not the same.
Of course the Second Law of Thermodynamics does indeed describe a gradual increase in entropy — a loss of usable energy — but this progression itself is governed by highly precise and consistent mathematical laws. In other words, the universe’s tendency toward entropy is not an example of chaos, but of law-governed order. True chaos would mean unpredictability and lawlessness, but that’s not what we observe — we see a cosmos operating under discoverable, rational principles.

The claim that the universe “seems chaotic to humans” is not a statement about the universe but about human perception. What may appear chaotic at first — turbulent weather, distant galaxies, subatomic behavior — often reveals itself to follow predictable and elegant patterns once studied through mathematics and physics. Even phenomena like black holes, quantum fields, and cosmic expansion are governed by equations of extraordinary precision. The very fact that we can model, predict, and describe these events speaks to an underlying intelligibility.

This leads to the deeper question: Why is the universe ordered and mathematically describable at all? The laws of nature are not only stable, but astonishingly fine-tuned to permit life and understanding. This is not explained by appealing to more laws or invoking entropy — that simply assumes what needs explaining. The question is not just what the universe does, but why it follows rational, law-like behavior to begin with. That’s not something science alone can answer — it's a philosophical and metaphysical question, and one the atheist materialist avoids at their own intellectual peril.

 

[AN2]

“Stoopid is as stoopid does”

You’re conflating thermodynamic entropy with fundamental chaos

Nope..

, which are not the same.
Of course the Second Law of Thermodynamics does indeed describe a gradual increase in entropy — a loss of usable energy — but this progression itself is governed by highly precise and consistent mathematical laws. In other words, the universe’s tendency toward entropy is not an example of chaos, but of law-governed order. True chaos would mean unpredictability and lawlessness, but that’s not what we observe — we see a cosmos operating under discoverable, rational principles.

So that was all a waste of time

The claim that the universe “seems chaotic to humans” is not a statement about the universe but about human perception. What may appear chaotic at first — turbulent weather, distant galaxies, subatomic behavior — often reveals itself to follow predictable and elegant patterns once studied through mathematics and physics. Even phenomena like black holes, quantum fields, and cosmic expansion are governed by equations of extraordinary precision. The very fact that we can model, predict, and describe these events speaks to an underlying intelligibility.

This leads to the deeper question: Why is the universe ordered and mathematically describable at all? The laws of nature are not only stable, but astonishingly fine-tuned to permit life and understanding. This is not explained by appealing to more laws or invoking entropy — that simply assumes what needs explaining. The question is not just what the universe does, but why it follows rational, law-like behavior to begin with. That’s not something science alone can answer — it's a philosophical and metaphysical question, and one the atheist materialist avoids at their own intellectual peril.

You make it sound like we can predict everything with mathematics

Take for example the birth of a solar system, given the initial ingredients can we tell precisely what it would like in a billion years henceforth (PS. I predict that you're not even going to attempt to answer that question)

 

[Haven]

So let’s be honest: you haven’t even engaged the scientific problems — the lack of a tested mechanism for abiogenesis, the problem of fine-tuning, the issue of information encoded in DNA, the breakdown of physical law at the singularity.

And so?

These are problems that are currently being worked on. Science has solved lots of other fundamental questions.

When science solves these current questions, will you just move on to a new set of problems and say "Duh, God! Has to be God!"?

Yes. Thats the fundamental weakness here.

 

[Hermit]

That is actually not what is proposed. We simply do not know, right now, how physical reality was created, at the exact moment of what is termed the Big Bang. We know that if we extrapolate backwards in time, we end up with an infinite singularity at some point in time. But we don't know what happened as existing physics breaks down at a point in time before this possible singularity may, or may not, have existed.

It's what Hawking proposed anyway. So your position now is a non-position: "we don't know". If you want to appeal to the future and say the cause of the Big Bang may yet be known, then that only leads to the question of what caused the thing that caused the Big Bang, ad infinitum. At some stage you will need to have a beginning, and that beginning of physical reality must have been caused by God because it cannot cause itself.

The "something from nothing" AKA Big Bang is a lie that they oft-repeat

Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

Professor argues in The Grand Design that law of gravity, rather than creator, led to Big Bang

www.theguardian.com

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

 

[AN2]

It's what Hawking proposed anyway. So your position now is a non-position: "we don't know". If you want to appeal to the future and say the cause of the Big Bang may yet be known, then that only leads to the question of what caused the thing that caused the Big Bang, ad infinitum. At some stage you will need to have a beginning, and that beginning of physical reality must have been caused by God because it cannot cause itself.

Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

Professor argues in The Grand Design that law of gravity, rather than creator, led to Big Bang

www.theguardian.com

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgor5hdD8s&t=65

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-133684

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+big+bang+theory

Why did the Universe (as we know it) expand, is that what you're asking? It's not known.

Post in thread 'An Open Letter to Atheists' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/an-open-letter-to-atheists.710/post-134055

 

[Haven]

It's what Hawking proposed anyway.

Hawking proposed several ideas over his life, that the universe....

• Had a beginning (singularity),
• Emerged without boundaries (no-boundary proposal),
• Began with time itself (no "before"),
• Originated from quantum laws (not divine intervention),
• May be one of many (multiverse),

So your position now is a non-position: "we don't know". If you want to appeal to the future and say the cause of the Big Bang may yet be known, then that only leads to the question of what caused the thing that caused the Big Bang, ad infinitum. At some stage you will need to have a beginning, and that beginning of physical reality must have been caused by God because it cannot cause itself.

Alternatively we could consider his No Boundary proposal, where the universe did not have a "beginning" in the conventional sense. Instead, time and space are finite but without boundaries—similar to how the surface of a sphere is finite but has no edges. Near the Big Bang, time behaves more like a spatial dimension, eliminating the traditional concept of a singular moment of creation.This implies the universe could spontaneously arise from quantum fluctuations—without a cause in time because time itself emerges after the Big Bang.

 

[Hermit]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgor5hdD8s&t=65

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-133684

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+big+bang+theory

Why did the Universe (as we know it) expand, is that what you're asking? It's not known.

Post in thread 'An Open Letter to Atheists' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/an-open-letter-to-atheists.710/post-134055

You accused creationists of lying about the claim about something from nothing, and I quoted Hawking who said very clearly that something can create itself from nothing.

Hawking proposed several ideas over his life, that the universe....

• Had a beginning (singularity),
• Emerged without boundaries (no-boundary proposal),
• Began with time itself (no "before"),
• Originated from quantum laws (not divine intervention),
• May be one of many (multiverse),

So Hawking doesn't know either and can't even decide on which of his ideas he likes best. "Maybe it had a beginning, maybe it didn't, but it's definitely not God even though I don't know."

Alternatively we could consider his No Boundary proposal, where the universe did not have a "beginning" in the conventional sense. Instead, time and space are finite but without boundaries—similar to how the surface of a sphere is finite but has no edges. Near the Big Bang, time behaves more like a spatial dimension, eliminating the traditional concept of a singular moment of creation.This implies the universe could spontaneously arise from quantum fluctuations—without a cause in time because time itself emerges after the Big Bang.

All these ideas about multiverses, or quantum laws that somehow exist but were not created, are a desperate attempt to come up with something, anything, even if it's paradoxical, that is an alternative to the God explanation.

 

[AN2]

You accused creationists of lying about the claim about something from nothing, and I quoted Hawking who said very clearly that something can create itself from nothing.

Stop lying

In post #413 I said that the Big Bang (scientific theory) is not a "something from nothing" theory

Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+the+big+bang+"something+from+nothing"

I also posted a video of creationist carnie Stephen Meyer agreeing with Joe Rogan when he said it was

So Hawking doesn't know either and can't even decide on which of his ideas he likes best. "Maybe it had a beginning, maybe it didn't, but it's definitely not God even though I don't know."


All these ideas about multiverses, or quantum laws that somehow exist but were not created, are a desperate attempt to come up with something, anything, even if it's paradoxical, that is an alternative to the God explanation.

 

[Haven]

How it started:

It's what Hawking proposed anyway.

How its going:

So Hawking doesn't know either

Where will we go next?

and can't even decide on which of his ideas he likes best. "Maybe it had a beginning, maybe it didn't, but it's definitely not God even though I don't know."

A more reasonable take is that he started with one proposal and refined his ideas over decades as more research and data became available, in this order:

• Singularity Theorems – Universe had a beginning.
• Black Hole Information Paradox – Raised questions about time, entropy, and information.
• No-Boundary Proposal – Universe has no edges; time begins with the universe.
• Imaginary Time – Smooths the Big Bang; time behaves like space at the origin.
• Quantum Cosmology – Universe arose from quantum laws, spontaneously.
• Multiverse Hypothesis – Our universe is one of many, each with different properties.

All these ideas about multiverses, or quantum laws that somehow exist but were not created, are a desperate attempt to come up with something, anything, even if it's paradoxical, that is an alternative to the God explanation.

So now Hawking was desperate!

You're the one who brought him up, boyo!

 

[Tiger]

A bit of fun.

Frankie Boyle putting celebrity atheists into room 101…


View: https://youtu.be/t-wcpKNt6Ng?feature=shared

 

[AN2]

A bit of fun.

Frankie Boyle putting celebrity atheists into room 101…


View: https://youtu.be/t-wcpKNt6Ng?feature=shared

Fascinating stuff Tigs:

1. You choose to mock atheism with a comparison to religion

2. Frankie Boyle is another person who (ostensibly) doesn't know what atheism is (it's not just limited to theists)

 

[AN2]

NEW! Morgan Uncensored is a discussion with Sean Carroll and Eric Weinstein('s chip on his shoulder). What is it with theists thinking "We don't know" is some sort of gotcha?


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5m7LnLgvMnM&t=50m3s

 

[AN2]

John Lennox..



I'll get to that fraud

DARLING of the theists Alex O'Connor just published an interview with John Lennox

You can watch the full (almost two-hour) snoozefest with the philosophy student and the creationist carnie here -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3gKCwldMZS8

 

[AN2]

Btw, for the theists here, feel free to comment..

This thread is starting to feel not so much as a challenge but a walkover

 

[Eclair Clearly]

Which group is more grating? Atheists or vegans?