Quote Originally Posted by Atheist
The reason the quote is out of context is because Russell's explanation is not being treated in the context he provided. Russell is saying he doesn't give a shit about your made up reason of how things began.

First Point: Yes Troy, science does say that the OBSERVABLE universe has a 'beginning'. But that's the crux: observable universe. It's the beginning for us because that's as far back as we can see. Until a way could be devised to "see further" beyond the observable universe, which may or not be possible, then we cannot make any claims one way or another what is before or beyond or if that is even required. Many people take it on faith that it is the FSM. It doesn't mean they are right. Please see Russell's Teapot for an explanation why I don't care.

Second Point: I really don't care what "believers" believe because not believing what they believe would cause their belief to not be believed. Contradiction of proof by authority is not a proof by contradiction. Again, see Russell's Teapot.

Third Point: OBSERVABLE universe. Once again, beyond that we don't have a clue until we get more DATA. No data, no evidence, no definitive answer. You can theorize all you want but until you can test it, it ain't science. I think an uncaused entity is illogical and unintelligible. But I have no proof one way or another. Again, see Russell's Teapot.

Fourth Point: If you state that uncaused things do exist, there is nothing that stops someone from assuming that the big bang is the original cause. If you can arbitrarily stop infinite regress, you can arbitrarily stop it any point when cause is no longer observable. I could take it on faith that is is the big bang. You choose to make it Jebus. Also uncaused absolute moral laws.... like slavery being perfectly okay? Like the wearing of spandex and silk warranting death? Whatever... By the way, predicate logic is internally incomplete... please again see the works of Bertrand Russell. If you can't think of an example where application of an identity law results in a paradox, you are lacking sufficient imagination.

Fifth point: Yes there is a category fallacy. He cannot be claimed to be the prime generator in a scientific discussion as he is not observable. Whether he does or not, please once again see Russell's Teapot.

Lastly: For all we know, there are other big bangs that have happened so far away that we cannot yet see them. And they could even possibly start to cross over into our universe at some point.... A circle does not have a beginning or end, you just keep going around. It doesn't need a beginning or an end. In fact, having a beginning or an end would cause it to no longer be a circle. Perhaps the universe it like that too. Or not. I find that a lot more interesting than taking it on faith that Pi is 3.
​Russell's comment is being treated in the context in which it is given. He was quoted and the reason was given why his statement made no sense. Therefore his comment is a nonsensical made up reason. We have evidence for causation, no evidence otherwise. Therefore, everything in nature has a cause. Nothing just pops into existence from nothing. That violates the laws of thermodynamics and science itself.

First Point: You made the claim only what is observable can be true. There are different ways of observing not solely with just your eyes. Since the universe always abides in cause and effect, you don't need to know all things going back into the past to know the universe needs a cause. Not many people believe in your FSM because it fails to stand up to even other faiths. That which is flying, spaghetti or monster has the attributes of the physical, but God is not physical as He meets the attributes of existing outside of time and space. I am also of the view if God exists He is personal and accessible because He can't be less than us. Therefore, the only faiths that are accessible are Christianity, Hinduism and Islam; that is, they are large enough to be deemed accessible. Less than 1% of 1% of the population believe in FSM. And since God does not contradict Himself, even if you knew nothing else, you would know Christianity has to be true because the god of Hinduism is said to be amoral (below our own morality) and reincarnation never effectively deals with sin. Islam fails because it has no evidence six centuries later Muhammad in a cave claiming Jesus never died on the cross. Both faiths are further illogical because salvation is not by works lest any man should boast.

Second Point: Russell's teapot applies to atheism so it is wrong to have a doublestandard. The burden falls on both parties making their claims. Theists provide evidence as we have seen since nature always has a cause, and therefore, nature can't just come into being all by itself from nothing. Non-existence can't cause anything, and something can't come into being before whence there was nothing. That's goofy. You have attempted to set up atheism as unfalsifiable, but that is just a delusion. You could prove theism false if you could prove how something could come into being from nothing. Nobody has ever been able to do so. So I would be illogical to reject theism on the basis you still can't disprove it.

Third Point: The data that you demand is that you must be God, knowing all things, to know if God exists. That's illogical since you are not God. It is enough to know the data of trillions of cause and effects in nature are an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Though you don't know everything you do know this. This is science observing cause and effect. You never stated why the uncaused entity is illogical. Several examples of uncaused attributes were given. These are laws of life, virtues and the law of identity. You don't need to theorize. Nature could not always have existed because if it did, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so.

Fourth Point: A big bang explosion is set off by the fire starter. Where do you see in nature something exploding all by itself without a cause? That goes against science. Infinite regress is not arbitrarily excluded. As was said, infinite regress is impossible because if it were true, by that definition you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, infinite regress is false; nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God.

It is doubleminded to say slavery is ok when in your natural only world it exists as being part of nature as ok. So it is ok for your faith but not for others? Whereas in Christianity and the Bible it is not ok. God never condones slavery in the Bible. You just misread it. Moral laws of God are part of His nature. He didn't create them. They are Him. There is no paradox in the identity law at least none you could show.

Fifth Point: You're making the mistake of limiting your imagination by only what you can see with your physical eyes. But if you were blind, you could see cause and effect too. Therefore, you continue to commit to the category fallacy. We are more than just our body, we also have a spirit and a soul (Heb. 4.12). Your body gives you world-consciousness with its 5 senses. Your soul (outer man) provides you with self-consciousness with the functions of mind (reasoning), will (volition), and emotion (affection, desire, sensing and feeling). Your spirit gives you the functions of intuition, communion and conscience. The spirit of man provides us with God-consciousness. Most people believe God exists; but most people worship the wrong deity.

Sixth Point: It is irrelevant if there are other universes or other big bangs, because they are all subject to cause and effect. Hence, Romans 1.20 says you know God exists just by observing nature. As for you circle theory it is flawed because the circle itself has a cause. What circles ever just started up all by themselves? When you go around a circle, starting at point A at time t, a certain amount of time has passed when you come around so it is not a circle after all in the sense you believe. You take it on faith something from nothing or something all by itself without a cause, but the evidence as we have seen shows that not to be possible because the universe always is subject to cause and effect. That is the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If God exists He wouldn't hold it against you for believing in Him because the evidence is strong. But He would hold it against you if you didn't believe in Him because you had nothing to back up your ideas.

At the end of the day to believe the big bang is all there is is morally bankrupt because it flies in the face of nature always having cause. Hence, your very faith in atheism is morally decrepit, because nothing really matters since the same verdict is the same for everyone no matter how evil you become. While this is true of naturalism and atheists, it is not true for theists, because we consider that evil.