Christopher Hitchens debates Hannity on God

[themickey]

Everything is simple to christians, God made the universe in 6 days then rested the 7th, the devil was a wayward angel who got kicked out of heaven but lives on for thousands of years and everything you do, God records it in a book and on Judgement day you'll need to confront the 'beak' where, unless you accepted the message from a slippery slimey snakeoil evangelist salesman, you're fucked for a gazillion years living in pain. Christians celebrate that!

 

[M.W.]

And who created those strong electric fields? They also created themselves out of nothing? ;-)

Everyone, shield your eyes -- here is an explanation.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/something-from-nothing/

 

[ph1l]

And who created those strong electric fields? They also created themselves out of nothing? ;-)

Remember, I told you to shield your eyes, but you did not heed my warning.

So now you know the answer. Your God is just strong electromagnetic fields and the Schwinger effect.

May the Schwinger be with you.

 

[M.W.]

Well we talked about an entity that must have created something for matter to come into existence. The article you cited clearly states that. Your choice what you call that entity.

Remember, I told you to shield your eyes, but you did not heed my warning.

So now you know the answer. Your God is just strong electromagnetic fields and the Schwinger effect.

May the Schwinger be with you.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Surely something or someone must have created matter and force to begin with. I don't claim that it must be God. I believe it but cannot prove it. But that's not the issue here. The issue is the stupidity to claim that matter creates itself.

So you want to keep going backward? Then who or what created this creator of yours? Or are you just willing to stop there arbitrarily?

 

[M.W.]

I believe in an ever existing omnipotent creator who can speak galaxies into existence. You can believe whatever you want. And you can laugh about my belief, I could not care less.

What you can't do is to pretend Hitchens ever made a single viable claim against the existence of a creator. He did not because any such claim already fails at the most basic level of physics.

So you want to keep going backward? Then who or what created this creator of yours? Or are you just willing to stop there arbitrarily?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

What you can't do is to pretend Hitchens ever made a single viable claim against the existence of a creator. He did not because any such claim already fails at the most basic level of physics.

Hitchens is not a scientist. He focuses on why religion ruins everything. And, yes, he is an atheist, as am I. Dawkins is a scientist, and he gets into the weeds, which you evidently don't wish to consider.

I believe in an ever existing omnipotent creator who can speak galaxies into existence. You can believe whatever you want. And you can laugh about my belief, I could not care less.

Right. You dismiss the science presented in favor of a belief based on nothing more than faith. That is your choice. But to then dismiss a considerably more fact-based conclusion as nonsense is more than just a tad ironic.

 

[M.W.]

Oh sweet tantalizing words, cleverly used to falsify what I said. I fully submit to science: show us please how matter creates itself in the absence of anything else. Then I concede that a creator is not needed to explain life.

Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have ever shown that matter can create itself in the absence of anything else. Hence they lived and died for nothing, their life purpose intended to be the disproving of a creator. All their works clearly point to the necessity of the existence of a creator.

In an ironic way they are some of the best advertisers for a creator existence. If a hardcore atheist scientist and debater both can't in an entire lifetime come up with a single convincing argument how a creator is unnecessary in the origin of life then that makes an even stronger case for a creator, not that either of those individuals are needed to do so.

Hitchens is not a scientist. He focuses on why religion ruins everything. And, yes, he is an atheist, as am I. Dawkins is a scientist, and he gets into the weeds, which you evidently don't wish to consider.


Right. You dismiss the science presented in favor of a belief based on nothing more than faith. That is your choice. But to then dismiss a considerably more fact-based conclusion as nonsense reeks of irony.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Oh sweet tantalizing words.

Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have ever shown that matter can create itself in the absence of everything else. Hence they lived and died for nothing, their life purpose intended to be the disproving of a creator. All their works clearly point to the necessity of the existence of a creator.

In an ironic way they are some of the best advertisers for a creator existence. If a hardcore atheist scientist and debater both can't in an entire lifetime come up with a single convincing argument how a creator is unnecessary in the origin of life then that makes an even stronger case for a creator, not that either of those individuals are needed to do so.

They didn't live their lives "for nothing." One was an author and journalist; the other is a scientist. You want to know what's a waste? Talking and praying to what doesn't even exist. Please don't let me stop you.

 

[Frederick Foresight]