The Endless Loop of Ray Comfort’s Mind
- Image via Wikipedia
I didn’t check my feeds much when away, mainly because I was on holiday, but also because my laptop completely died on me. I’ve only just set everything back up, and whilst I did check the odd website (like Friendly Atheist and Pharyngula), I didn’t check on many of the others. One of the sites I avoided was Ray Comfort’s site “Atheist Central”, and it doesn’t look I missed a lot. For one, he seems to have come up with this idea that because atheists don’t believe in God, they must therefore believe everything came from nothing. Comfort must have had a “eureka!” moment when he came up with that one, because he has proceeded to make several posts all centering around the same idea. I’ll debunk them all now.
From “The Intelligent Atheist is not an Atheist“:
It is scientifically impossible for nothing to create everything. If nothing created everything, then the “nothing” isn’t nothing. It is something, because it had the amazing ability to create everything. Only an unscientific ignoramus would hold to the thought that nothing created everything. We have the dilemma of having everything, so we therefore have to come to the conclusion that something made it. Whatever it was, it had to be non-material (unseen), eternal (without beginning or end), and it had to be omnipotent (have the amazing ability to create everything from nothing). If the professing atheist concedes to such basic logic (which he must or he reveals that he is unscientific and unintelligent), then he’s not an atheist. He is in truth an agnostic (“One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.”). He is someone who believes that there was a creative force that brought everything into existence, but for some reason he denies that it was God.
Firstly, I’d very much doubt that creating everything from nothing would be held as “scientifically impossible”. There are very few things that are labelled scientifically impossible due to recent research in quantum mechanics. Given that the Big Bang is a well supported theory, and we have no definitive theories about what happened before it, then a “nothing to everything” hypothesis is still on the table. Just because the nothing caused everything doesn’t change it being a nothing though, as Ray would like you to believe. He is arguing with semantics, saying that if nothing has an ability to do something, it must be a “something”, but this argument holds no merit because he fails to understand simple concepts like cause and effect. If there was nothing and then the universe suddenly appeared, it doesn’t mean the “nothing” was the cause. Secondly, the whole argument is rather silly as few scientists hold to the theory that “nothing” created everything. The scientific consensus is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe as it currently is today, and that before that everything might have been compressed into an infinitely small point (a singularity), which although infinitely small, is not “nothing”.
Ray then goes on to say that the “creator” of everything must have been non-material (why? define “material”), eternal (why?), and omnipotent (why?). Already he is committing a logical fallacy by assigning the properties of a God onto this hypothetical creator. Why does the creator need to be non-material, when we have no idea what was there before the Big Bang? Why does it need to be eternal, when the current scientific argument is that time began at the Big Bang (and therefore there is no such thing as “eternal”)? Why does this creator need to know how to do everything in order to create a universe, which after all is a finite thing? Ray then goes on to a very bad definition of an agnostic (person who holds that the idea of God is unprovable) and how no atheists are really atheists at all. Many people have shown that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and I hold to both views.
From “Atheism’s Best Kept Secret”
An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will of course deny that because it’s an intellectual embarrassment, but if I say that I don’t believe that a builder built my house, then I am left with the insanity of believing that nothing built it. It just happened.
An atheist is someone who disbelieves in the existence of all gods. Atheism doesn’t have a position on how everything came to be, and the atheist is welcome to subscribe to a number of ideas if they so wish. Many do, many do not. I don’t deny Ray’s point because it is an intellectual embarrassment (it’s not though); I deny it because I don’t believe it. I personally accept the Big Bang theory as the explanation of how the universe began, and before that I can safely say I don’t know. Unlike Ray though, I am prepared to look at what scientists are saying, and the stuff concerning string theory, multiple dimensions, and “brane worlds” is intriguing. It’s nice to see the “building means a builder” fallacy again though, and those reading who recognise why this reasoning only works on things we know the process of, can stare in disbelief at how Ray hasn’t realised this simple point yet, even though it has been explained to him many times over the years.
From “Response to the Below Blog”
There is no intelligent response that can justify the embarrassment of professed atheism. It is intellectual suicide. Remember, if you believe that something made everything, then you are not an atheist.
These statements quite astound me when coming from a man who openly mocks Evolution by inventing the “Crocoduck” and claiming that scientists are looking for it to prove their theory, who says that the entire idea is a “fairy tale for grown-ups”, and who keeps on claiming these same things even when presented with as much evidence as his detractors can throw at him. There is misunderstanding; there is utter ignorance; and then there is Ray Comfort, and you don’t get much lower than that.
On his second point in this paragraph, Ray has committed the common fallacy of assuming that there are only two options for everything. Either nothing created everything, or “God” created it. He completely misses the point that if something created everything, it could be all manner of “somethings”, some of which include gods, some not. An atheist can easily fit in the “some not” group.
From “Eternal Everything”
There were a number of responses to the impossibility of the common atheistic belief that nothing made everything.
I bet there were.
They haven’t argued the point, but rather defaulted to the belief that the universal is eternal. But that won’t work. It’s a scientific impossibility. The Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe cannot be eternal.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics only proves that the current state of universe we live in is not eternal, and had some sort of beginning. However, it says nothing of what happened before the beginning, or what will happen when entropy increases to maximum (Big Crunch anyone?). This is thinking outside of the box on a literally universal scale, and the thinking extends to unseen dimensions of space-time, as well as the multiverse. Of course Ray would probably either mock this view or call it “unscientific” (like he actually knows what that word means), all because he has a closed minded view that this is all there is, and only God can explain it.
From “Atheism: the Intellectual Embarrassment”
It’s a matter of definition. If you say of your Ford Expedition that you have no belief that there was a maker, then you think that nothing made it. It just happened. You have defined yourself as having that mentality. So if you call yourself an atheist, you are saying that you have no belief in a God–a Creator. Creation just happened.
It is indeed a matter of definition, and Ray simply moves the goalposts by assigning the “creator” as an actual being. He ignores the creator as a natural process, and says that if a being couldn’t have done it, nothing could have. This is an extremely simple view to take when you take into consideration all of man’s achievements compared to those made by natural processes. As I have already pointed out, the “building means a builder” argument only works on things we know the origin of. I know a building needs a builder, so I expect one. I have never seen a universe being “created” so I have no idea what did it (if anything). Atheists have no belief in a God as a creator, but that doesn’t mean we don’t believe in some creative force, and just as we accept the creative force of Evolution and natural selection, we accept the creative force that brought the universe into being (whatever it was).
So now we uncover theism’s best kept secret; the fact that although theists appear on the most part friendly and welcoming, they will be dishonest and lie to cover up the truth. They will create complex explanations for why science does not reflect their god, and when the explanation looks so silly even to them, they will renounce it and claim that science has got it wrong. For the best kept secret of the theist is that they cannot possibly be wrong, because after all, they have a holy document given to them by their god, and their god just has to exist. Theism is the intellectual embarrassment, and always will be, because without the doctrine, theism is nothing, and boy do they know it.
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
Ray Comfort, Liar for Christ(tm), proves my personal maxim that if you have to lie to make your point, you don't have a point.
Really enjoyed this post. For some reason, saying "I don't know, but I hope to find out someday." doesn't work for believers.
This is the fallacy in his argument: If he's so hell-bent (no pun intended) on insisting that we had to have had a creator, then – wouldn't logic follow that if this creator is so powerful, extravagant and well-orchestrated, that creator would have had to have a creator himself? And so on and so on?
<blockquote~>Given that the Big Bang is a well supported theory, and we have no idea what happened before it
That's not true, Adrian. There are very interesting ideas of what happened before it, and there are clues to it. What keeps scientists from supporting them are some inconsistencies that are still unresolved. Hopefully the LHC will also shed some light about that.
Also, the second law of thermodynamics is probably the law of physics that is worst used in these kind of debates about God. Mainly, because "entropy" is not an easy definable word, and these morons reduce it to "chaoticism", which is a complete red-herring to the cluenessness of them.
Ok, but I guess I was trying to separate what we "know" from what we can speculate. Due to the nature of the Big Bang, there aren't any solid ways that we can figure out what happened before. The LHC (as far as I know) will only show what the universe looks like a few nanoseconds after it happened. Correct me if I'm wrong though :D
I was trying to emphasize the point between what we know and what is speculation. As far as I am aware, the LHC experiments will only tell us about the universe a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, and not before it. I will stand corrected if you can explain how some of the "ideas" are true science though. For instance, whilst I find string theory intriguing, I do not think it is yet in the realms of science, and more in the realm of speculation, since it has not demonstrated how it can be tested or observed.
Well, sure Adrian, if that's what you meant I agree. You did say however that the scientists don't have any ideas on how it happened, and that's simply not true. Had you said that scientists didn't have a theory of it, then I wouldn't jump on it. Those ideas are still in the range of hypothesis, but they have a solid basis on physics and do present a much more justified reasoning than any other methaphysical explanation.
Ok, I guess I did use the wrong word. I think saying there are no "definitive theories" is probably more accurate :D
Adrian, aren't we all making a mountain out of a mole hill. If the big bang theory is correct ,and that's how the Universe began, is not intelligent to surmise that there were other big bangs – in actual fact big bangs happen all the time. As for the God argument that is really crass. I'm an Atheist which means I do not believe in God or any other God – I do not believe in some supernatural spirit or force that rules our lives or leaves us alone to cope with this ungodly mess. Ray's argument is flawed in so many ways its difficult to know where to begin. I was always told by my science teacher that to have a bang you have to have something for it to bang in. If there is a God he or she is really dumb – allowing dinosaurs to roam the world for 170 million years before he or she realized oops perhaps I made a mistake let me try something a bit smaller. Really…………………….
What on Earth are you talking about?
If your position requires multiple big bangs, when all we have evidence for is one – hypothesized extra dimensions – etc, why not be open to belief in God? Why is all the other possible {when explaining essentially that nothing(whichisactuallysomething) created everything,} and God is not possible? You can say we are wrong in pushing our belief when there is so much that is unknown – yet are you not also wrong for pushing your unbelief for the same reason? Your sublime certainty on the matter smacks of faith. I believe in God because as best as I can see, the universe had a beginning, and must have been created by something bigger than itself. As best as I can see, is the best I can do, and I am required to make a decision. Then when I accepted Jesus by faith I met a Being who claims to be God, and (once again) as best as I can see looks like what God must look like. You can and [probably will] ridicule, but you didn't meet Him, and I did. If you had, your sublime certainty would be faced the other direction.
I am open to belief in God, after all, I used to be a Christian. I am almost constantly re-evaluating my beliefs, but the problem for me is that if there were some form of intelligent creator, it would have to be greater than the universe, and if that is true, then it must have been created (because we said the universe must have been created for the same reasons). If we go down the "complexity means creation" route then what created the complex being God, and what created the being that created God? I cannot believe in things that seem to tend to infinity in a long line of cause and effect, when they can be easily explained by the universe coming into being all on it's own and creating time with it. There is no need for a "first cause" if time didn't exist before the Big Bang. The universe created itself and time, and that is how it looks according to the evidence. I am happy to go along with the evidence and remain with questions than to come up with complex arguments that do not make sense to answer them.
Well, I don't think they "can be EASILY explained by the universe coming into being all on its own" after all, the laws of science as we know them still fall apart one millisecond before the Big Bang. Don't you have the same infinity problem though with matter? Doesn't matter exist in 4 dimensions, height, width, depth, and time. For matter to exist at all, doesn't it have to exist in a moment of time? Is an ifinite regression of moments possible?
As far as I am aware, we do not know what was around before the Big Bang, so I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that science falls apart before it. If the laws of science are confined to this universe alone, then there would be no reason for them to exist in whatever the universe occupies anyway, and there is certainly no way to prove anything like that. Dimensions are a lot more varied than you lay out, and all we know is that matter exists in 3 dimensions and moves through a 4th (time). There could be many more dimensions though, and certain aspects of physics predict unseen dimensions. Matter doesn't have to have time to exist because time isn't a spacial dimension, but of course physicists will tell you that we don't even know what time is yet. The general consensus is that time started at the Big Bang though.
Mike, my understanding is that the new super collider is intended to permit experiments that go back a bit before the Big Bang. However, the issue you raise will remain, that being; What may have happened before the reach of human understanding?
I don't think a proper response is "anything". Rather is it "we can't reliably speculate".
Regarding dimensions, we percieve time and space to be observable. There are some proposed understandings that posit additional dimensions. My understanding is that the meaning of "matter" is profoundly different in the context of these additional dimensions.
Regarding an infinite regression of events, my understanding is that in the pre-Big Bang universe causality becomes confusing due to the collision of quantum mechanical and relativistic effects … think about the entire obserable universe being condensed into a volume of a large citrus fruit … that was the state of things at the moment the Big Bang. There would be no electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The medium of "space" in which light will eventually propagate does not yet exist. In this realm the question of what came first; the cause of the effect; is moot.
The short version; the universe we understand was manifested from a prior state undergoing an expansion of space and time. There is no need for a universal origin.
Mike, my understanding is that the new super collider is intended to permit experiments that go back a bit before the Big Bang. However, the issue you raise will remain, that being; What may have happened before the reach of human understanding?
I don't think a proper response is "anything". Rather it is "we can't reliably speculate".
Regarding dimensions, we percieve time and space to be observable. There are some proposed understandings that posit additional dimensions. My understanding is that the meaning of "matter" is profoundly different in the context of these additional dimensions.
Regarding an infinite regression of events, my understanding is that in the pre-Big Bang universe causality becomes confusing due to the collision of quantum mechanical and relativistic effects … think about the entire obserable universe being condensed into a volume of a large citrus fruit … that was the state of things at the moment the Big Bang. There would be no electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The medium of "space" in which light will eventually propagate does not yet exist. In this realm the question of what came first; the cause of the effect; is moot.
The short version; the universe we understand was manifested from a prior state undergoing an expansion of space and time. There is no need for a universal origin.<span class="idc-clear"></span>
Mike, my understanding is that the new super collider is intended to permit experiments that go back a bit before the Big Bang. However, the issue you raise will remain, that being; What may have happened before the reach of human understanding?
I don't think a proper response is "anything". Rather it is "we can't reliably speculate".
Regarding dimensions, we percieve time and space to be observable. There are some proposed understandings that posit additional dimensions. My understanding is that the meaning of "matter" is profoundly different in the context of those additional dimensions.
Regarding an infinite regression of events, my understanding is that in the pre-Big Bang universe causality becomes confusing due to the collision of quantum mechanical and relativistic effects … think about the entire obserable universe being condensed into a volume of a large citrus fruit … that was the state of things at the moment the Big Bang. There would be no electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The medium of "space" in which light will eventually propagate does not yet exist. In this realm the question of what came first; the cause of the effect; is moot.
The short version; the universe we understand was manifested from a prior state undergoing an expansion of space and time. There is no need for a universal origin.<span class="idc-clear"></span>
Mike, my understanding is that the new super collider is intended to permit experiments that go back a bit before the Big Bang. However, the issue you raise will remain, that being; What may have happened before the reach of human understanding?
I don't think a proper response is "anything". Rather it is "we can't reliably speculate".
Regarding dimensions, we percieve time and space to be observable. There are some proposed understandings that posit additional dimensions. My understanding is that the meaning of "matter" is profoundly different in the context of those additional dimensions.
Regarding an infinite regression of events, my understanding is that in the pre-Big Bang universe causality becomes confusing due to the collision of quantum mechanical and relativistic effects … think about the entire obserable universe being condensed into a volume of a large citrus fruit … that was the state of things at the moment the Big Bang. There would be no electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The medium of "space" in which light will eventually propagate does not yet exist. In this realm the question of what came first; the cause of the effect; is moot (at least locally).
The short version; the universe we understand was manifested from a prior state undergoing an expansion of space and time. There is no need for a universal origin.<span class="idc-clear"></span>
Mike, my understanding is that the new super collider is intended to permit experiments that go back a bit before the Big Bang. However, the issue you raise will remain, that being; What may have happened before the reach of human understanding?
I don't think a proper response is "anything". Rather it is "we can't reliably speculate".
Regarding dimensions, we percieve time and space to be observable. There are some proposed understandings that posit additional dimensions. My understanding is that the meaning of "matter" is profoundly different in the context of those additional dimensions.
Regarding an infinite regression of events, my understanding is that in the pre-Big Bang universe causality becomes confusing due to the collision of quantum mechanical and relativistic effects … think about the entire obserable universe being condensed into a volume of a large citrus fruit … that was the state of things at the moment the Big Bang. There would be no electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The medium of "space" in which light will eventually propagate does not yet exist. In this realm the question of what came first; the cause of the effect; is moot (at least locally).
The short version; the universe we understand was manifested from a prior state undergoing an expansion of space and time. There is no need for a universal origin.
Your science teacher was wrong. The big bang describes an expansion OF space and time, not IN.
Sure God is possible, just provide some evidence for one. Seeing as though you also subscribe to Yahweh being this creator, you should also provide evidence that this God was responsible, not one of the thousands of other Gods to choose from.
The big bang DOES NOT describe the beginings of anything – it simply traces the universe back to when it was the Planck length. While this is incredibly small it is still an entire universe away from being nothing.