Hitchens: IC is an infinitely expanding tautology

Q&A part VI of the Hitchens vs. Turek debate at VCU, VA. Full debate: www.vimeo.com/1...
and (annotated)
• Video
Turek continues his self-ridiculing (singularity=miracle wtf?), Hitchens argues that the argument from irreducible complexity (IC) stating that because DNA is so complex or beautiful it must be created is an "infinitely expanding tautology".
Relevant:
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...

[@separatethread]

I love how, at the end, Hitch realizes that arguing with Turek is like arguing with a cabbage. Rather than lower himself, Hitch simply ignores Turek and openly appeals to the audience's rationality. You can't argue with stupid.

[@kappla]

You can’t argue with stupid. And you shouldn’t.

[@ChillAssTurtle]

@Xen hes a thoughtful idiot.

[@desertdan4602]

very true

[@arriuscalpurniuspiso]

Turek pretending to be a scientist is hilarious

[@vjara94]

​@@arriuscalpurniuspisohe's a science denier, a very bad one at that, and a shame to the human race

[@krtmddhs]

This Guy(Hitchens) has to be the greatest debater to have walked on the earth.

[@TheClassicWorld]

+rahul raj I along with Dawkins think him to be the greatest orator of our times.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

rahul raj he's dead, god lives

[@jsmit9484]

+Hosoi Archives Glad he killed his son then... -_-

[@evoke2976]

OH SHUT IT!!!

[@hosoiarchives4858]

All he did was badger the guy. Almost everything Hitchens said was a strawman

[@christopher-bj8de]

It's always funny when people who believe in fairy tales start demanding we look at the evidence.

[@mnb9162]

The Bible was a genius creation for controlling a population of people. Nothing more than that. The Men who made and added to it did not expect the origins of the story to be taken literally. The main aim was the messages within for creating some governance at a time when things were out of control. The fact that people today actually take the story of the Bible literally is laughable. Its a Metaphor.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

If you get to believe in fairytales you have to let other people do it to.

[@pokerman9108]

@Jazzkeyboardist1 none the less, he still destroys god addicts with logic and reason....

[@readynowforever3676]

WOW!! Bravo👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 JUBILEE💥💥💥💥💥💥💥 A thread were every commenter makes profound elucidations or assertions.

[@12AX74Life]

This is one of my favourite Hitchens debates because it's one of the funniest. Turek is so hilariously out of his league, this is awesome.

[@marymcreynolds7361]

Hitchens always inspires me. Turek is always a jerk.

[@WILLYUMZZZ]

Turek is really frustrating to watch. "He wouldn't believe in his birth because it only happened once." Extraordinary stupidity.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

He was explaining the concept of singularity and you didn't understand. Turek is orders of magnitude smarter than you

[@dariusnoname12]

​@@hosoiarchives4858 He is smarter as long as it is not about religion. Look before he agreed that miracles are suspension of laws. Then he forgot that and started saying that miracle is the same as this debate, cause it happened once. Everyone can be smart, but when it comes to religion, they forget logic, chooses faith and all answers become "god". And that is a big problem, because if your first answer is god, then you completely discard your critical thinking. We can see how his questions almost contradicts with what he said before. Every person I met was like that. If you want someone public, then Ben shapiro would be great example. Anyway, what religious people need to do is to ask question why, and not completely answer that with "god". Then most likely they will become atheists or agnostics.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

@@dariusnoname12 No

[@dariusnoname12]

@@hosoiarchives4858 short answer

[@nollattacykel]

@@hosoiarchives4858 Turek may be smart but he is also totally dishonest.

[@flankspeed]

"It seems that resurrections were something of a banality at the time." Killer line 😅

[@Stratboy999]

Also hilarious.🤣

[@Skindoggiedog]

"Lazarus was raised ... never said a word about it" haha Classic

[@jasonnesmith6518]

Like Epicurus, Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, and other like-minds, Christopher Hitchens has found the only possible form of immortality.

[@ReX0r]

"Hume if he were alive today[...], would not believe in his birth" Thank you Christopher for giving us the only reply worth uttering to this statement.

[@rajathshetty325]

The name of the physicist was Gerges Lemaitre.

[@lookitup3]

"There's an obvious difference between the singularity and the miracle, and I think it would be embarrassing to try to explain it. It would be patronizing." LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

[@hosoiarchives4858]

You still have to explain it. Backflips won't work

[@Søutħsidë]

@@hosoiarchives4858 Death of a person happens only once, but it isn’t a miracle.

[@somethingtojenga]

We know the Big Bang happened because the Universe expands ALL the time. It's a common occurrence. We know we were born because birth happens all the time and the results of it match entirely with our own experience. I'm getting pretty sick of the desperation and ridiculousness of Turek.

[@Rad_Crab]

I think that's a trait I probably love most about Hitchens, as far as debate goes anyway. He has such charm yet such sting during discussion, he commands the stage and really makes the event entertaining lol.

[@richard123466]

It's so great to see Turek getting frustrated because Hitch is so much better at this than he is.

[@jonmiles5836]

Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence.

[@alteregoash]

To the poster: I love that you included the links you did. Highly relevant and a good background. Because Hitchens' is forced to be terse here I think people may miss the level of subtlety and complexity in HItchens argument.

[@Strega222]

The other person seems desperately afraid to let Hitchens finish a point without interruption. He belies his insecurity in his own beliefs.

[@cnault3244]

Turek @ 3:45 "if he rose from the dead he was god" Using Turek's argument, other gods in the Bible are: The widow of Zarephath’s son (1 Kings 17:17-24). The Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:18-37). The man raised out of Elisha’s grave (2 Kings 13:20-21). The widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-17). Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40-56). Lazarus of Bethany (John 11). Various saints in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:50-53). Tabitha (Acts 9:36-43). Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12).

[@onsenguy]

i have not once in my life ever heard the religious side get the better of the argument when debating freethinkers. if religion were _really_ true, wouldn't they at least score an occasional win?

[@schmetterling4477]

You are clearly not informed about "the mystery of the faith". That's why you never hear educated Catholics debate at this level. They have long removed themselves from the debate circus and are selling the dope pure. ;-)

[@pancakes1271]

That was utterly, utterly brutal.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

Lewis Hancock hitchens was horribly wrong

[@smallman7538]

Hosoi Archives About what exactly?

[@hosoiarchives4858]

@@smallman7538 Irreducible complexity destroys Darwinism

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

@@hosoiarchives4858 you forget that 98% of DNA does nothing. Not very complex!

[@nikola7132]

@@hosoiarchives4858 There Is a special chapter for "Irreducible Complexity" in God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

[@MyEnemy]

He really is. He's never off-balance or surprised, and always has a clear line of sight into the foggiest of territories regardless of the issue.

[@aguy559]

The level of arrogance it takes to believe that you have the right to assert things without evidence, never fails to shock me.

[@vincentcain5880]

I keep coming back to all of these videos. Hitchens is the best mentor I have ever had. The messages resonate so profoundly. Everything he says about religion just makes sense. Turek with his apologist bull just comes off as petty and ignorant.

[@paulbrewer2374]

I'm almost embarrassed for Turek. He is so severely outclassed by Hitchens. There's no contest here.

[@sebd2507]

Man i love listening to Hitchens

[@VladSWG]

Turdek... utterly DESTROYED LOL🤣🤣🤣

[@ClumsyRoot]

Turek seems edgy. I guess that's what happens after you've been Hitchslapped for an hour straight.

[@IricForset]

Hitchens: Explains things logically (maintains acceptable voice level) Other guy: Forms contradictions and incorrectly states what religion is (raises voice all the time)

[@600micsofacid]

I've never seen Hume so misinterpreted in my life. turek should stick to theology.

[@jessewallace12able]

So he should stick to nothing.

[@icarus313]

The fact that some people can actually look at the Christian creation myth, compare it with the current scientific picture of how the universe was formed, and think that they bear ANY similarity to each other whatsoever, is one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard in my entire goddamn life.

[@12AX74Life]

Out of all of the Hitchens' debates, Turek is the most hilariously out of his league. Some first year philosophy students should use Turek's arguments as a nice, easy to follow introduction to the concept of logical fallacies.

[@kbonez2]

Agreed. You can see Hitchens just kind of rolling his eyes throughout the debate. The way he talks about not getting into the difference between a singularity and a miracle is a good example of this attitude. He thinks its embarrassing to listen to Tureks weak arguments and poor defenses.

[@BrownieSyndrome]

The greatest thing that could have happened during this was the guy asking questions just said "Here is a question from ICP. 'Fuckin' magnet's, how do they work?'"

[@GetMeThere1]

ya gotta love Hitchens. I'm gonna remember his little talk about "the resurrection as banality" for situations like the one he used it in....

[@lifeofbob2896]

This is becoming a pet peeve of mine; we actually don't know that the universe came into being out of nothing. The earliest time we know about is the Plank epoch, a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang occurred, and all indications are that there was exactly the same amount of total energy at that moment as there is now. Any physics majors out there who can tell me if I'm wrong on this?

[@BrookstonHoliday]

What could Turek possibly be a doctor OF?

[@thehellyousay]

religion. think on that. feel free to giggle if you like.

[@ATOK_]

Stupidity

[@feonor26]

​@@thehellyousayIt's like being a doctor in a degree at Hogward's School of Magic

[@sepiae]

If we *would* want to patronize Mr. Turek, we could, for example, point out that it's not only possible that life on Earth had evolved from the components that make it possible more than once, but it's also plausible: at the time when the 1st simple life forms emerged they did so in an environment that would be extremely hostile to us, and while the planet was still under heavy bombardment, and they presumably did not so repeatedly in the same puddle. And with these components being rather abundant throughout the cosmos we can calculate another likelihood of life having evolved elsewhere, too. We could further patronize Mr. Turek by stating that while this solar system had formed only once, star systems are pretty common within a given galaxy, one could say they're quite fashionable, to the extent that they *make* up a galaxy.

[@starfishsystems]

That was my immediate thought as well. It's astonishing that Turek would attempt such dreadful arguments, unless that's all he has.

[@JackKangaroo1]

I am always amazed at the obtuse mindset of the Creationists. They simultaneously insist that the universe could not have come out of nothing with no designer while also claiming that a designer with no known origin, who apparently spontaneously sprung into being from nothing, created everything in the universe. So in essence they insist that the universe is too complex to have happened all by itself and then offer the even more improbable explanation that a more complex designer built it.

[@richardbarry04553]

This guy Turek is such a chowderhead

[@cnault3244]

Isn't Turek a Christian? Why would Turek bring up gravity and molecules? Why doesn't he just present the evidence for the Bible story of Christ's resurrection?

[@Cthulhu013]

Christians often try to weave in science into their religion, as if their holy texts knew it all along to lend it more credibility. What they don't seem to realize is that the act is a sort of silent admission that they know The Bible isn't enough evidence to warrant belief. I had a Christian tell me the other day, "Science is still catching up to The Bible." These people are often profoundly delusional and ignorant.

[@no-oneman.4140]

15th December 2011 - the day the world became a much dumber place.

[@MaxHarden]

What is "the only thing he said all night he is going to remember" at 2:45 is Hitchens referring to?

[@DamonIcke]

@talkstosocks Huh, I always thought accreditation depended on having a well rounded curriculum. What courses do they offer? Do they offer any class that does not have "apologetics" in the title? I'd be pissed if I attended Turek's school and when I graduated discovered that I could only get a job at a church.

[@brogren802]

What about the so called resurrection that happened only once so it goes against his argument at the end.

[@schmetterling4477]

Well, Jesus is said to have raised several people from the dead, they are just not being counted as resurrections because it is assumed that all of these people died, again... even though no evidence is being presented for that, either. What is more strange is that the actual resurrection is not being talked about. The bible only claims that he has shown himself to a great number of people (over 200, also without any evidence for who most of these people were supposed to be). Paul does not insist of a theology of bodily resurrection. To him resurrection of the soul is sufficient. The Evangelists are not so squeamish. They demand full resurrection in the flesh and more (like the ability to sit on a heavenly throne for eternity... ouch... now that's torture, right there!). The Catholic Church insists on bodily resurrection, which means that absolutely everybody who died is still dead and will be until Jesus returns. Heaven and hell are, as of now, completely empty in proper Catholic mythology. That, of course, has long been overridden by Hollywood imagery about heaven that was mostly invented by atheist Jewish scriptwriters with a great sense of humor. ;-)

[@OsyenVyeter]

The part about it being an infinitely expanding tautology is brilliant. Finally a new piece in the theological debate Its just like my analogy of the fact that all life sharing 80% similar genetic sequence. They just take that fact and say "well they share so much in common because they have a common designer" When you know DAMN well if we then suddenly found 1 specie that didnt have the traditional ATCG, theyd forego the first arguement and say "ha! proof against evo" they "win" either way

[@thisisanfield7085]

Mr Turek… stop shouting pls. The dude is sitting next to you

[@matimus100]

A hostile crowd! I bet hitchens loved this challenge Bravo Christopher

[@dotoree]

1) If you have two doctors to choose from to operate on you, which would you choose, A) one which has been consistently accurate and know crucial facts long before anyone else or B) One that has some correct concepts and some faulty concepts and is heavily influenced by politics, biases, establishments, etc. that may or may not be right. The Bible is A. Science while valuable is indisputably B. Science teaches certainty and insists on it's brilliance EVERY bit as much as anything else.

[@dotoree]

@babaluboo123 for some reason, I am unable to post three responses to your posts. Keep getting an error message. Will try later. - My deep sympathies. Have experienced the same thing NUMEROUS times and it's VERY frustrating. No htmls are allowed and sometimes youtube doesn't like letters next to periods. Also, sometimes if you copy other's words, it inserts a strange character that can't be reposted...copy it to MS word, delete the strange character and put it back into youtube.

[@FiresInsidious]

Did he just say say someone wouldn't believe their own birth just because it happened once... Eh?

[@brendanrhys]

omg rofl. I've seen countless Hitchens debates, read his books, and even some of his articles. I have never seen a smack down this intense. The ultimate insult to a person's stance is to concede ground solely for the fun of it.

[@Tauron68]

Becoming angry in a debate...first sign of defeat.

[@simongross3122]

Wow, the difference in body language is stunning.

[@nealfager8126]

"Free Your Mind" by listening to or watching Christopher Hitchens and George Carlin!

[@duxnihilo]

Abiogenesis didn't happen only once. Who's this Turek guy?

[@aRobeGamr]

I was just thinking the same thing. During one period on this planet =/= one time.

[@Skavar4000]

You don't have the end of the debate?

[@tnorway]

can someone please explain to me this thing, I can't understand it. Does Hitchens talk about a logical, mathematical or rethorical Tautology?

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

The tautology is "god did it, or not" and they have defined god to include infinite power and knowledge so they just get to say every time we learn something new it is evidence that "god is even cleverer than we thought". So I guess a logical tautology?? If you can call it that.

[@dotoree]

Obvious difference between a singularity&a miracle. - Turek doesn't impress me, but he's constantly being interrupted & blocked from talking. But, question. Where did the material for the singularity come from? How did all the universal laws necessary for it to create the universe come into existence (gravity, cosmological constants, etc.).And have you ever seen an uncontrolled explosion create complex functioning systems? Watch this /watch?v=tYLHxcqJmoM (esp. chapt 5&6)

[@sulijoo]

Aren't fractal patterns an example of "irreducible complexity"? Just asking.

[@katrinak902]

Why don't we see these type of debates anymore? I know Hitchen's died, but what about Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, etc?

[@gaiusgermanicus8296]

mmzen Good...

[@joeallgood5317]

As he should be.

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

Maybe the apologists figured out they have nothing to debate? Too many Hitchslaps etc. made them realize that they have nothing at all of quality to say and when they get on stage they end up looking dumber that politicians. Neither one can tell the truth.

[@Cthulhu013]

Turek throwing a tantrum is hilarious. He is a child angry at daddy.

[@Michael-bq8dp]

Sorry for Turek😢

[@Forserean]

I wish i understood what you meant by that. Could you dumb it down please?

[@clintleffingwell8129]

Just in case anyone is interested, I listened to a recent interview with Frank Turek on an Athiest v. Christian podcast last month; and his arguments haven't gotten any stronger, albeit a bit more seasoned. Interesting to note that he still used the same old tired "forgetfulness" joke, and was quick to acknowledge at the beginning of the interview that he had his ass handed to him by HItchens in this debate. :-)

[@dotoree]

@babaluboo123 Sorry for multi posting below by mistake. Don't know how to delete. When I have time will check out the Hitchens & Wolpe debate. But, I think I've got some solid arguments that no one I've heard has presented in defense of Christianity yet. You've only heard a couple of the many reasons there are to believe in God, some with MANY testable evidences. I'm just so swamped right now, but if I can get my presentation finished. Will try to send it to you through youtube.

[@dotoree]

I detest youtube's format...it's horrible in many ways...but I am so busy with so many pressing deadlines, that I just can't spare the time for much more than short comments and youtube's limits help that a bit (although many little comments add up I suppose)...I actually want to go to some major atheist sites and engage in some major debates...maybe if I can get some projects accomplished and not get sidetracked so easily :).

[@dirdib69]

"I don't him time to support it!" Turek is clearly getting frustrating and flailing a bit towards the end. I love the bit about even the miracles don't prove anything else. The religious really need to not try to mix scientific arguments with religious arguments. Stay in your lane, please.

[@LordYon13]

How is DNA irreducibly complex? Can someone help me out, I just fail to see the problem here!

[@veganmochi]

A PhD and still Turek doesn't comprehend that no matter how loud he says something, the increased volume neither makes him right nor intelligent.

[@fequalsma42]

@tielec01 Agreed. His response about events that occur only once was purely semantics.

[@crabbit101]

I still don't know why anyone in their right mind would dare debate Hitchens on religion. I have never seen him lose a debate.

[@DJea-ni2yk]

I could only WISH that this had come out BEFORE I had to spend 64 YEARS, wondering! RELIGION IS SUCH A USELESS AND TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE THING TO LAY ONTO A YOUNG CHILD! I WILL NEVER BELIEVE IN IT AGAIN, EVEN IF I SAW THEM WALKING ON H2 0H!! NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER AGAIN!!! THANK YOU CHRISTOPHER!

[@JackKangaroo1]

Here's a question for Christians: Do you believe God "has a plan"? And do you believe He is infallible?Okay, I'm guessing you agreed. Next question: Do you pray? Yes? Okay then, why? Most prayers are requests for special favors of some sort. But aren't you asking God to change his plan? If he's already got a plan and he's all-knowing and infallible, why ask him to change or correct the plan? Do you think he knew you would pray then? Okay, so he already factored that into his plan, so why pray?

[@JackKangaroo1]

@JackKangaroo1 And just to clarify my last point here, if your God is all-knowing and has a plan then it stands to reason that he must have already factored into that plan whether or not you were going to pray to him to ask a favor, in which case if you don't pray that's already part of his plan and if you do pray, that was too; so no matter whether you pray or not it's already factored into the equation, so why bother praying?

[@DaDoctaBoom]

6:50 yes, spontaneous generation. Except that's what Theists believe, rather then Materialists. Materialists understand Montmorillonite synthesization of RNA, a self-replicating molecule, which started the chain reaction known as Life.

[@MelkorHimself]

"If the universe exploded into being out of nothing, then miracles are possible because the greatest miracle of all has already occurred." Turek's argument fails from the beginning because of that statement. Thanks to symmetries in nature we know that the universe has a total energy of zero, and only a universe with total energy zero can begin from nothing. We know that quantum mechanics allows particles to pop in and out of existence, which we've measured indirectly. It makes the BB plausible.

[@Henrik46]

Melkor That's assuming those quantum particles came from a nothing that was real. They do not. They come into being in an already existing universe. The Big bang defies all laws of physics we know today. Therefore it is a miracle.

[@crrodriguez]

3:19 Turek embarrasing himself with logic that escentially took from his arse... "so, if the universe came from nothing then miracles are possible" huh ? wtf man !!

[@dotoree]

3rd, on DNA, God designed people with brains to function, not waste. He gave principles for the best life (which helps people in my church live 10 years longer than other Americans according to both National Geographic and Blue Zones research centers. But, he left the thrill of discovery for us to figure out with the minds he gave us to USE,not waste. Teachers routinely design activities so students can discover facts instead of telling them all answers. Our brain is to be used, not wasted.

[@lord69z]

I am at least reassured by the fact that some people seem unable to really believe in nonsense. Even back when you could be killed for being an unbeliever some people stood strong.

[@jameshicks7125]

Turek's amygdala has been totally hijacked by Hitchens. Turek is like a gazelle freaking out on the Savannah as Hitchens quietly stocks him like a lion.

[@rmweav11]

Turek got destroyed in this debate.. legitimately got destroyed.

[@JackKangaroo1]

@callofduty497 As God is a somewhat nebulous entity, how do you know what form He is in? I'll bet many Christians perceive God as a physical entity. If God is physical, then we are not talking of Creation so much as Transformation of one physicality to another. If God is (as you say) an "immaterial being" then aren't you simply assigning the name "God" to the natural processes that formed the universe. Isn't God then also known by another name----the Big Bang?

[@thereasonabletroll68]

@teenw0lf1971 its also bad to debate by making claims and not supporting them with evidence. also. whats with all the "dats" and "cuz"s. are you from compton or some shit?

[@52111centrumcz]

What is funny is a drunk Hitchens has more convinving arguments than a sober Turek.

[@ButterflyStorms]

Life has been created only once? It could be happening all the time on our Earth. We don't know that it has happened only once. I would suspect that it happens all the time but new life would not be much of a match for the life on our Earth today that has survived over billions of years.

[@owaisindiakhan]

Ouch! Hitchens has stumbled, when he implies that Mary could have given birth to Jesus parthenogenetically (5:28). I believe that is not possible. Female birds, repltiles etc that have a ZW-sex determination system, CAN give virgin births to males, for males are ZZ and females are ZW. Virgin-birth sons are therefore viable. For humans who have XY system, where will the female get the Y chromosome without a male (males are XY, females XX)? If Mary is Virgin Mother, Jesus had a fake beard.

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

I think he was just pointing out that a virgin birth doesn't get you to divinity. But yes.

[@califoniania]

And, it can serve as a powerful impetus to start a relationship in the first place. Be honest, do you approach members of the opposite sex that you are not attracted to and ask them out? I don't mean as friends, but in the hopes of having a romantic relationship. To me there has to be some level of physical attraction for someone to catch my attention so that I approach them.

[@johndavies6756]

I miss Christopher Hitchens very much, and am doing my best to carry on his work toward ending faith in the unobservable in favor of getting at the true nature of things through science, logic, reason, and the scientific method. Ending faith does not mean ending morality, since both religion and morality are inventions of man. Morality must be fostered and preserved; faith and religion must not.

[@saxogrammaticus3917]

I think the mediator has already chosen sides against hitchens just look at his expressions....its 2 vs 1....maybe its just me idk

[@TheClassicWorld]

+Rodolfo Umana The mediators are almost always religious. But this does fine, Hitch has stated before he does not care if he is the only one whom thinks how he does in the whole of USA. He has also debated four at once before.

[@michaelm6179]

2v1 was the only way to make it fair really.

[@Fernandez218]

if you watched the entire debate I thought it was more the other way around

[@Grak70]

If the physics you develop is self consistent and doesn't depend on a special location or motion when you make an observation, then conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum are a necessary consequence: they will emerge from your model automatically.

[@ghk2001]

Turek reminds me of that guy Hammer from the Iron Man franchise.

[@ciaochowbella]

@FightingFitKravMaga I DID say that. We do get our morals from one another since there IS NO OTHER SOURCE. Unless and until you can prove there's another source for morality, you've got no other argument for the source. BTW, if *I* say "this is wrong", that IS merely stating it.

[@lordlacolith]

I suppose examples are forthcoming?

[@Themata]

I think 5:49 is one of my favourite Hitchens moment a banality 😅

[@stuartdavey1327]

Ah Christopher you are so sadly missed!

[@goodbryan]

@SMTsquidge The model suggests that at the moment of the big bang time and space came into existence. So in that model there can not be a moment prior to the big bang as there is no time in which it could happen, as well as no space. So as that is what the model implies and there is sufficient evidence to support the model, it is reasonable to say it.

[@BionicDance]

It is so FRUSTRATING to watch Hitchens debate these people. I mean, it's obviously a heavyweight being forced to box with a featherweight; this Turek fellow doesn't have a frickin' CLUE, and so much of what Hitch says goes right over his head. It's EMBARRASSING.

[@stephenwestcole]

The end is great. Bang. Zoom.

[@DamonIcke]

@Melvin6566842 I wonder, is the Southern Evangelical Seminary an accredited university? Does this school and others like it even attempt to teach Science or Pseudoscience? It seems like every theist in these debates is confused by some very basic and universally accepted facts most of us learn in middle school.