How does Romans 1 explain this...?

[Vulgaris Prime]

Are you people trying to argue that the universe was started from nothing by nothing?

 

Depends. Are you trying to argue that your magical sky-man was created from nothing?

 

Although I do believe in the Holy Bible, I never once argued for a Christian God. I simply argued for a creator, a creator I call God. Not Bible God or Christian God, I simply argued for the existence of God.

 

Which is, conveniently, lined up perfectly with the BibleGod. Odd thing, that.

 

I believe science when they tell me the universe had a beginning. Common sense tells me that in order for anything to be created (like a universe for example) there must be something to create the creation.

 

And in order for your god to exist, by that "logic", something must have created it. And something must have created what created it. And something must have created that, and so on...

 

I can go in circles until you puke just from watching.

 

My point is that Romans 1 is simply stating you see the evidence of God by way of His creation.

 

And the sun rises because the rooster crows. It doesn't follow, man.

 

You try to bash me but you have no counter arguments.

 

 

Are you missing something, here? Take a good look at this thread. Look at how many times you get your sorry ass handed to you.

 

Please feel free to enlighten me. Tell me how science is wrong and the universe doesn’t have a beginning.

 

It's not harvest time. Take down the fucking straw man!

 

Or, explain how the universe came into existence from NOTHING by NOTHING.

 

Only if you explain how your god exists without something existing to create it. No weasel arguments, either, like "God has always existed" or "He retroactively made himself". I'm talking a REAL ANSWER.

 

Alternately, you can admit you're a lying liar who lies for the presuppositionalist liar argument, and I will not annoy you again.

[Ouroboros]

Are you people trying to argue that the universe was started from nothing by nothing?

No, because we don’t know and we can’t know.

 

Maybe the universe came from a proto-universe that existed for eternity.

Maybe the universe collapses at the end, and implodes and then eventually explodes again.

Maybe the universe is the result of two colliding parallel universes.

Maybe the universe is a creation of a matter that exists in a different universe.

Maybe there is a huge heavenly machine that keeps on spewing out universes, as we speak.

Maybe there is an Intelligent Creator behind it all, and that himself was created by a super-god above him.

Maybe it was created from nothing when Braham opened his eyes.

Maybe it doesn’t exist, but everything is just a fancy hologram that manages to fool your senses.

Maybe there was a whole family of gods that help each other to create the universe.

Maybe the matter did exist before, but in a different form.

Maybe the universe is a reflection of our consciousness and we are gods creating it while we exist.

Maybe it is a computer simulation program that Bob created, and Bob currently is on a website arguing the Cosmological Argument if he has a God or not.

And lastly, maybe there was one single god that created it all, but it was an accident, he tripped and spilled his soup on the floor and the world came to existence, and maybe he had a son and some spooky cousin that was on a visit.

 

The easiest approach to belief is to take the shortest logical route.

We follow the Parsimony Principle, Occam ’s razor.

The simplest path is most likely the correct one.

I have no notion of a god or creator.

Until proven guilty, he is innocent.

Until he’s proven to exist, he doesn’t exist.

 

Freethinker means that we keep an open mind, but it doesn’t mean we accept every notion before it makes sense. You see We use our Common Sense.

 

Although I do believe in the Holy Bible, I never once argued for a Christian God. I simply argued for a creator, a creator I call God. Not Bible God or Christian God, I simply argued for the existence of God.

Your answer was what I wanted. I challenged you to give me that response so it was clear, that even you don’t know if it was the Biblical God that created the universe. So why are you so hardcore to prove that God must exist, especially after I gave you a whole bunch of alternative answers?

 

I believe science when they tell me the universe had a beginning. Common sense tells me that in order for anything to be created (like a universe for example) there must be something to create the creation.

Common Sense doesn’t exist. There’s nothing common in it. Your emotional reasoning tells you there must be a god, but not your logical thinking. As I said before, nature tells us that God must be visible to create something, and he isn’t. So where is he?

 

My point is that Romans 1 is simply stating you see the evidence of God by way of His creation.

And I don’t see the evidence. I have no notion of a god from nature. Nature tells me that it can exist, just because it exists.

 

You try to bash me but you have no counter arguments.

We’ve given at least 50, but you don’t read them. Where is your Common Sense and Free Will right now? You only obey your notion and imagination and can’t see the arguments.

 

Please feel free to enlighten me. Tell me how science is wrong and the universe doesn’t have a beginning.

It did have a beginning, when time began. Beyond that, time and matter is unknowable and indefinable, but not necessarily nothing.

 

Or, explain how the universe came into existence from NOTHING by NOTHING.

Again, we don’t know if there was nothing before time and matter, but it automatically doesn’t mean that the SOMETHING was CREATOR. There’s a huge difference.

 

If your only argument is “I don’t like yours” then you have no argument.

We’ve given you plenty, if you just read with an open mind.

So why is your argument that you don’t like ours? Then you have no argument either!

 

I’m open for if there is a god, but until it can be validated, I have no need for one.

[invictus1967]

If it is evidence you want, then evidence you shall have. Please forgive the lack of references but I am doing this off the top of my head. However, any of these facts are easily Googled. If I misspell a name or give the wrong year, please don’t jump up and down screaming.

 

It all began when Einstein published (1917?) his General Theory of Relativity. Using his equations, some brainiacs of the time determined the universe was expanding. It was also deduced that by working backwards you could find a single infinitely small point at which it all began.

 

This was not received well in the scientific community. It freaked out Einstein so much that he introduced a “cosmological constant”, also known as a “fudge factor”. It was later observed (late 1920s?) that galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is known as Hubble’s Law, after Edwin Hubble who discovered this movement of galaxies.

 

The observations of Hubble and other astronomers confirmed what had been deduced from Einstein’s equations. The universe was indeed expanding.

 

Hubble spent the rest of his life trying to disprove what his findings helped to prove. Out of disgust, Fred Hoyle, a critic of the theory labeled it “The Big Bang”. Einstein eventually admitted the cosmological factor (fudge factor) was the greatest “blunder” of his life. Einstein also grudgingly admitted what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and also “the presence of a superior reasoning power.”

 

Observations of “background radiation” in the 1960s considered to be left over from the “big bang” convinced most of the validity of the theory.

 

In the 1990s a group from Berkley led by George Smoot found slight variations in the background radiation. These “ripples” seemed to account for the formations of clumps that eventually formed the galaxies. Smoot said “If you're religious, it's like looking at God.”

 

Theist and science historian Frederic B. Burnham stated "The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years"

 

Acceptance of the “Big Bang” threatens and encounter with God. Therefore, atheists that realize the implications fight it vigorously. There have been and continue to be many who study the findings of the last century and attempt to find problems with the theory and some offer alternative theories to the “Big Bang”. None have gained any sort of wide spread acceptance and the “Big Bang” is by far the dominant theory.

 

Romans 1 says we should acknowledge God as creator. That is tough for many to swallow. But as hard as that is to accept, it is getting even harder to defend an eternal universe as opposed to one that was “created”.

[Mr. Neil]

*sigh* I didn't ask for a lesson in the history of physics. Would you mind explaining how that's evidence? Because the singularity points to a beginning? Are you still equivocating "beginning" with "creation"?

 

"Where is the scientific evidence for a creator?" is what I'm asking.

 

All you are doing is you're overlaying your belief on top of the big bang theory and, in the process, showing us that you don't understand cosmology. You're still inserting a seemingly uncreated phenomenon to explain an a seemingly uncreated phenomenon. When you do that, then I can't help but reduce your assertion, throwing away your fifth wheel, and just saying that the universe exists.

 

Either way, something uncreated exists. Don't you understand the fallacy of special pleading? Your assertion is reducible!

 

Have I mentioned how much that image cracks me up? I'd be funnier if Sailor Mercury actually did that on the show after someone said something stupid. *drops her visor* "I can see that you just don't get it." If I had weird gadgets like that, I'd totally do that to people.

 

 

Err... not that I'd ever watched Sailormoon.

 

...because I haven't. Not ever.

[Thurisaz]

Is there anyone here still trying to cling to the hope that the universe is eternal????

 

The universe had a beginning.

 

Let's ignore the countless levels of fallacy included in that quote for a moment and assume that it's true.

 

Well, "invictus" (HA!), I'm glad that you agree with me: This clearly proves that the High Gods of the North created the earth from the corpse of the giant Ymir.

 

If you happen to disagree, you surely can present proof for your version being correct. Go ahead.

 

*predicts utter silence on fundie boy's part, as usual*

[Thurisaz]

Or, explain how the universe came into existence from NOTHING by NOTHING.

 

[Vigile]

You are full of double talk.

 

If atheist don’t say “chance” is the reason we are here, just how do they explain it.

 

Evolution? Then what started the evolutionary process?

 

Romans 1 is saying common sense points to God. Even if you chose not to believe in the God of the Holy Bible, surely you must apply common sense at some point and realize that nothing plus nothing will always be nothing.

 

Something had to generate that “big bang”. There is a point in the history of the universe where time did equal 0. But don’t take my word for it, do your own research. You wouldn’t believe me anyway.

 

Whatever created the universe and the point where T=0, must exist outside of our concept of time and space.

 

You can call that whatever anything you like, I like the term God.

 

 

I'll answer this with a quote I saved from Mr Spooky:

 

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about "Order."

 

Many, many ancient myths and legends assert that the world was born out of some primordial form of "Chaos." That is, "Order" arose from "Chaos," often at the hand of a sentient being (i.e. God). When people try to distinguish the two, they point to creative, positive forces as examples of Order (such as plants growing and creatures being "designed" by evolution) and destructive, negative forces as examples of Chaos. As creatures who usually prefer the former and shun the latter, this makes sense to a degree, but it falls apart under closer analysis.

 

Everything has limited, finite, and determinate properties. We know that an agent produces particular and determinate effects in accordance with those properties. A ball, tossed at a wall, will generally bounce back because it is bouncy. Crystals will generally form in salt water as the water evaporates because of its specific chemical properties. And given the right coalescence of water and wind currents, a hurricane will form.

 

We see then that "chance," "randomness," and "Chaos" aren't exactly inherent in reality as we understand it classically. Things that we attribute to "Chaos" (such as storms, supernovae, etc) are in themselves perfectly ordered structures and events that arise from known, natural physical causes. Even fully "random" effects such as atomic decay follows pretty determinate probability curves. We only appeal to "Chaos" when we do not know HOW something is caused. The dichotomy between "Order" and "Chaos" is an epistemic matter, NOT a metaphysical one. We appeal to "Chaos" only due to the limitations of the human intellect, it has no bearing in reality.

 

Order is an inherent property of reality, pure and simple, naturally prescribed transcendentally. There's nothing particularly special or rare about it, because the struggle between "Order" and "Chaos" is an illusion.

 

The question then reduces to a scientific matter... CAN such seemingly miraculously ordered things as life come about without the intelligent guidance of a God? I would point you towards the success of evolutionary biology.

[Thurisaz]

Err... not that I'd ever watched Sailormoon.

 

...because I haven't.  Not ever.

 

Me neither! Really! I'm not kidding you! I never ever watched Sailor Moon!!!111!!!

 

[Ouroboros]

You still don't get it!

 

Science, as you yourself have proven, doesn't deny a beginning, like the Big Bang. So why do you maintain that we don't believe there was a beginning? We know about the Big Bang, we don’t say it didn’t start, and we didn’t say it came from nothing. But no scientist or religionist knows what was before that the beginning.

 

Scientists have different theories what was before Big Bang, and they don't say it was nothing. The Big Bang theory can easily lend itself to that before Big Bang there was Something. But it doesn’t say what.

 

This Something is to me: Status Still Unknown.

This Something for you is: God.

 

You want it to be a conscious creator, that' s why you argue to so hard about it.

 

Big Bang doesn't mean God. Most scientist and most of us, subscribe to the idea of the Big Bang, so why do you say that we believe it was created from nothing? You say Big Bang scared the people that believed the Universe was infinite, but how can it scare us then, because we don't believe it? We don't have a problem with a finite universe, what we have a problem with is the unknown before the beginning has to be a The Big Green Goo that we have to pray to, and only because that’s what you believe.

 

St Paul, used the Nature, that he know of, to say it proved God, while he didn’t know about the universe or physical laws of any kind. So, really, using science to prove God based on this bible verse is sacrilege. To St Paul it was the beauty of a tree and the vast ocean that convinced him God was a creator and maintained it with his hands. He believed the world was in Gods hands, upheld by his power.

 

Now, scientifically we know now that God doesn’t make it rain, it follows natural causes. So Nature works by itself, without God, contradictory to Paul’s beliefs. So how can the Nature he used as proof of God, today be proven to follow natural laws, have any meaning at all? And especially say that atheists therefore also should “know” there is a God.

[Ouroboros]

It all began when Einstein published (1917?) his General Theory of Relativity. Using his equations, some brainiacs of the time determined the universe was expanding. It was also deduced that by working backwards you could find a single infinitely small point at which it all began.

The universe is still expanding, and latest tests show that it might be expanding faster than thought before.

 

This was not received well in the scientific community. It freaked out Einstein so much that he introduced a “cosmological constant”, also known as a “fudge factor”. It was later observed (late 1920s?) that galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is known as Hubble’s Law, after Edwin Hubble who discovered this movement of galaxies.

 

The observations of Hubble and other astronomers confirmed what had been deduced from Einstein’s equations. The universe was indeed expanding.

 

Hubble spent the rest of his life trying to disprove what his findings helped to prove. Out of disgust, Fred Hoyle, a critic of the theory labeled it “The Big Bang”. Einstein eventually admitted the cosmological factor (fudge factor) was the greatest “blunder” of his life. Einstein also grudgingly admitted what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and also “the presence of a superior reasoning power.”

Well you said it yourself; his fudge factor was a mistake even he admitted, so he made a mistake about the presence of a superior reasoning power too.

 

Observations of “background radiation” in the 1960s considered to be left over from the “big bang” convinced most of the validity of the theory.

 

In the 1990s a group from Berkley led by George Smoot found slight variations in the background radiation. These “ripples” seemed to account for the formations of clumps that eventually formed the galaxies. Smoot said “If you're religious, it's like looking at God.”

Scientist sometimes uses that kind of terminology without being religious, they only refer to the experience of bliss and awe they feel, and without any better terminology they chose the language of religion. He said “IF you’re religious…” he didn’t say “I’m religious and therefore I say we are looking at God”. Isn’t if funny, that you read what you want to read?

 

 

Theist and science historian Frederic B. Burnham stated "The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years"

He’s a science historian, what do you expect. Besides you really don’t understand the concept of Atheism, what so ever.

 

Look at the statement again: “The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea.”

What kind of bullshit is that?

It basically says the community maybe will think about the notion of an imagination.

It’s always prepared to look at alternative options. Science always is. That’s the beauty of science. You really don’t understand the philosophy of science, do you?

 

A scientist should always be open to new ideas, but the ideas get scrutinized. They don’t jump to conclusions, but they consider. They argue and debate and validate. The sentence above means that the scientists promise to keep on doing what they’ve been doing for a very long time. They look at everything, and throw out what is bad.

 

Do you really say that because “they’re ready to consider the notion” that it proves that God exists? You’re jumping to conclusions again! They are ready to debate it, not prove it. We are currently debating with you; does that prove that you are automatically right? Where is the line for you between debating and conclusion?

 

Acceptance of the “Big Bang” threatens and encounter with God.

No it doesn’t, because I currently am accepting the Big Bang as a theory to the beginning, while if there is any theory that is better I would change my opinion. So if the theory that God created the world is a better theory I would choose it. But currently I don’t see that is the case, it only stops progress instead of encouraging exploration.

 

Therefore, atheists that realize the implications fight it vigorously. There have been and continue to be many who study the findings of the last century and attempt to find problems with the theory and some offer alternative theories to the “Big Bang”. None have gained any sort of wide spread acceptance and the “Big Bang” is by far the dominant theory.

Really? I didn’t know that. So you’re saying that all these years when Intelligent Design Creationists are fighting against the Big Bang theory, they actually are helping the Atheists! I had no clue! I actually thought it was the other way around! I thought that the agnostic scientists are fighting to KEEP the theory of Big Bang, while the ID people are fighting to remove it and replace it with the young earth.

 

So which way is it?

 

Romans 1 says we should acknowledge God as creator. That is tough for many to swallow. But as hard as that is to accept, it is getting even harder to defend an eternal universe as opposed to one that was “created”.

No, it’s not tough to swallow. I think Paul is of the charts of known insanity in this verse. So I can accept a Nature without God, but it is much harder for you to accept that.

 

I’m not defending an eternal universe. But I am defending the scientific method to find out what was before the beginning. I keep an open mind, as a free thinker. You have already made up your mind, as a religionist. Here is the big difference. I’m willing to change my opinion if enough proof comes up, but you are never willing to change your position because you want to prove what you believe, not believe what you prove.

 

And why do you deny that Deism and Hinduism is wrong, when they also accept a Conscious Being(s) being part of the beginning? Hinduism accepts many gods, and deism accept an unknown god. Why do you deny that it could be a whole family of gods that created the world? But you keep on getting to that it must be God (in singular) who created the world.

[Mr. Neil]

Does anyone else find it odd when a Christian accepts the big bang model, but they won't accept evolution? It's like they'll only accept those sciences which they think are compatible with their faith, and everything else is disposable.

 

You can't both accept and reject the scientific process at the same time. Science is not a buffet table. Stop treating it like the Bible!

[Ouroboros]

This is what I read in an article about Big Bang:

Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10^-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period.

Notice the, Nothing is know of this period. If we don’t know what was before the Planck time, then we don’t know if there was an empty void, or nothing, or that something else was there. But note another thing, the word “something” doesn’t necessarily mean “someone” or “somebody”.

 

Anyone that studies database design faces the challenge to understand the NULL value. Null means “Not Known”, it’s even wrong to call it a value, because it represents the “No Value”. Null is not the same as 0. If you add a value to NULL the result will be NULL. Like this:

NULL+0 = NULL

NULL+a = NULL

And so on.

 

NULL could also represent the time before time, and the matter before matter. NULL is still unknown, and can’t be compared to God or anything else. Unknown is unknown is unknown. I accept that it could be a God, and I accept there it could be NO God. But history and science points stronger to the latter, so I choose not to believe until other evidence can be provided.

 

Secondly, Nature has more incidental and accidental causes than intentional causes, so Nature actually points to an accidental cause of the universe rather than an intentional. That is logical and that is what nature proves.

[Ouroboros]

Does anyone else find it odd when a Christian accepts the big bang model, but they won't accept evolution?  It's like they'll only accept those sciences which they think are compatible with their faith, and everything else is disposable.

 

You can't both accept and reject the scientific process at the same time.  Science is not a buffet table.  Stop treating it like the Bible!

Yes, that’s the reason why I’m bit upset.

 

How can a creationist use the Big Bang theory to disprove atheism, and the next sentence deny Big Bang as cause to the universe? Is it an argument by confusion and accepting and rejecting science in some kind of flip-flop method?

 

I’m going to call these kinds of arguments for the Flip-Flop Method from now on.

 

It’s pretty much a bait-and-switch, first make everyone agree on something you personally don’t believe in, and then when everyone agree, switch to deny it instead to prove your next thing.

 

MrNeil, tell me, does Big Bang theory say that there was nothing before the Big Bang? My understanding is that it just doesn’t say. Some scientists maintain that theory, but it’s not necessary for the Big Bang as an explanation to the Current Universe. I just want to be sure here, so I don’t go to much out on a limb.

[Mr. Neil]

My understanding has always been that the big bang is also the beginning of time, so there can be no "before" the big bang. Hawking compares the phrase "before the big bang" to saying "north of the north pole". You can't go north of the north pole, and you can't go before the big bang.

 

It's more of a point of reference than an event that you can fit into a sequence of before, during and after. That's why Invictus keeps stumbling over his own feet trying to turn it into a creation event. He wants God to be a temporal being who creates temporality, which is a paradox and can thus be thrown out.

 

I don't know if I would call it bait-and-switch, but he is trying to have his cake and eat it to. He's trying to use the big bang to essentially defeat the big bang by removing its properties. He's thinking of the big bang as though it's part of a sequence in which nothing exists, and then God made something exist. He thinks it's just an explosion of matter, scattering across the universe. And then of course, he doesn't have to explain where God got the material to make the universe, because he's God. He can do anything. Circular logic!

 

I seriously doubt that Invictus has spent any time studying physics outside of Googling shitty apologists who've gotten their credentials through backdoor scholarship programs. He doesn't seem to realize that everything he's been saying is just dashed to pieces by string theory.

[invictus1967]

This is almost amusing.

 

You ask for evidence and I give it. Without giving any evidence of your own to invalidate mine, you attempt to attack my intelligence by saying “that isn’t evidence”.

 

I gave you solid evidence that the universe has not always existed. You have offered nothing to refute that. In fact, many of you seem to concede that point. It there by follows that if it has not always existed and it exists now, at some point it must have been created. Logic tells me that in order for something to be created there must be something to create it.

 

Exactly where did I lose you folks?

 

The best any of you could come up with was some double talking gibberish of me equating a “beginning” with “creation”

 

Ahhh, YEA. That seems to be a LOGICAL conclusion.

 

Is it your belief that once the universe did not exist and now it does existed, but it was never created?????

 

Is that logical??? Were you being serious???

 

You actually accuse ME of “not getting it”. Have you even read your own posts?

 

-------------------------------

 

Don’t just bash, show YOUR intelligence. I gave evidence in support of my argument. Now you do the same.

 

Give evidence to refute the universe had a beginning

 

Or

 

Give evidence to support (what I consider to be a ridiculous) idea of the universe having a beginning without ever being created

 

Or

 

Give evidence and/or a theory as to how the universe could have been created without the presence of an all-mighty supernatural being.

[Cerise]

invictus...nevermind.

 

I shall let Neil deal with you. You are too stupid for me to waste my time with. I simply don't have Neil's overwhelming patience with morons.

[invictus1967]

Cerise,

 

Weak, very weak.

 

Trying to avoid admitting you have no response by casting insults.

 

I am sure you are capable of more than that.

[Vulgaris Prime]

Mr. Neil: Err... not that I'd ever watched Sailormoon.

...because I haven't. Not ever.

 

Thurisaz: Me neither! Really! I'm not kidding you! I never ever watched Sailor Moon!!!111!!!

 

*smug-yet-amused look* I'm sure you both haven't. The name "Queen Serenity" means nothing to you both... *big toothy grin*

 

This is almost amusing.

*grin fades* Funny, I was about to say the same thing about you.

 

You ask for evidence and I give it. Without giving any evidence of your own to invalidate mine, you attempt to attack my intelligence by saying “that isn’t evidence”.

Because it isn't. It's you using weasel-words and ignoring arguments to continue your pointless ramble. It's you repeating your bullshit "encounter with GAAAAWD" argument. You haven't given evidence - you've regurgitated. Does someone have that mock-up book cover we used for Lying Saul?

 

I gave you solid evidence that the universe has not always existed.

SHOW ME.

 

You have offered nothing to refute that.

To refute WHAT? You haven't given any evidence, just a lot of babbling about unrelated things! WHY THE FUCK DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?!

 

In fact, many of you seem to concede that point. It there by follows that if it has not always existed and it exists now, at some point it must have been created.

And thus, your god did not always exist, AND MUST HAVE BEEN CREATED. Address my point or admit defeat, inpricktus.

 

Logic tells me that in order for something to be created there must be something to create it.

Thus something created your god. WHY THE FUCK DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?!

 

Exactly where did I lose you folks?

Who is more lost, the fool or the fool who follows him?

 

The best any of you could come up with was some double talking gibberish of me equating a “beginning” with “creation”

 

Ahhh, YEA. That seems to be a LOGICAL conclusion.

You mean like this?

 

(...)if it has not always existed and it exists now, at some point it must have been created.  Logic tells me that in order for something to be created there must be something to create it.

Address my earlier point, inpricktus, or admit defeat. What created your god?

 

Is it your belief that once the universe did not exist and now it does existed, but it was never created?????

Your god exists, but was never created. You maintain this viewpoint by refusing to address my point, yet you continue to put up this strawman.

 

Address my earlier point, inpricktus, or admit defeat. What created your god?

 

Invictus: Is that logical??? Were you being serious???

 

You actually accuse ME of “not getting it”. Have you even read your own posts?

 

I refer you to your posting history. You ever read this shit, inpricktus? You're coming off as completely brick-headed.

 

Invictus: Don’t just bash, show YOUR intelligence. I gave evidence in support of my argument. Now you do the same.

 

You have given nothing! WHY THE FUCK DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?!

 

Invictus: Give evidence to refute the universe had a beginning

 

Or -- Give evidence to support (what I consider to be a ridiculous) idea of the universe having a beginning without ever being created

 

Or -- Give evidence and/or a theory as to how the universe could have been created without the presence of an all-mighty supernatural being.

 

 

Prove your argument that the universe must have been created, but your god didn't need to be. Address it or admit defeat, inpricktus.

 

ALSO: WHY DOES THIS THING HATE ME?! SOMEONE TELL ME WHY THE CODE NEVER WORKS!

 

 

Edited for quotes repair. Quote function works with a maximum of ten quotes. -Reach

[Vulgaris Prime]

Cerise,

 

Weak, very weak.

 

Trying to avoid admitting you have no response by casting insults.

 

I am sure you are capable of more than that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You smug little fuck. You just stay on that fucking high horse, you little shit. You keep acting like we can't touch you. Meanwhile, we're going to run you off like before and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about it.

 

Just get the fuck out, inpricktus. Nobody wants you here, or in life. Go kill yourself; you have no worth. You aren't even human, just another gibbering BibleBot. You deserve to die friendless and alone in a gutter.

[Mr. Neil]

Don’t just bash, show YOUR intelligence. I gave evidence in support of my argument. Now you do the same.

 

Give evidence to refute the universe had a beginning

 

Or

 

Give evidence to support (what I consider to be a ridiculous) idea of the universe having a beginning without ever being created

 

Or

 

Give evidence and/or a theory as to how the universe could have been created without the presence of an all-mighty supernatural being.

So you want us to...

 

Prove a negative

 

or

 

Endorse your strawman

 

or

 

Prove a negative

 

Um... fuck you. Nobody has to do any of that. You're trying to make the god concept a default without ever making a case for it, and we're not going to let you do that.

 

 

I gave you solid evidence that the universe has not always existed. You have offered nothing to refute that. In fact, many of you seem to concede that point. It there by follows that if it has not always existed and it exists now, at some point it must have been created. Logic tells me that in order for something to be created there must be something to create it.

 

Exactly where did I lose you folks?

There's nothing to refute. You gave no evidence. You still don't understand the big bang concept. You can't have a "before" the big bang in big bang cosmology. You're being inconsistant in your reasoning and clearly have very little understanding of cosmology.

 

 

The best any of you could come up with was some double talking gibberish of me equating a “beginning” with “creation”

 

Ahhh, YEA. That seems to be a LOGICAL conclusion.

Why is that logical? Please explain.

 

And while you're at it, tell us what "common sense" is and how we use it. I noticed you skipped that question earlier on. Is it because you got caught saying something you couldn't back up?

 

 

Is it your belief that once the universe did not exist and now it does existed, but it was never created?????

Nope.

 

 

Is that logical??? Were you being serious???

At whom is this inquiry directed? I stated that the big bang was a point of reference, akin to the north pole. You can't go beyond that point, otherwise you leave the plain. To say otherwise would be to reject big bang cosmology, which is why it's abundantly clear that you don't understand cosmology.

 

You can't use big bang cosmology to assert something that is incompatible with big bang cosmology.

 

 

You actually accuse ME of “not getting it”. Have you even read your own posts?

Forest. Trees. Not seeing.

 

 

Exactly where did I lose you folks?

Kinda hard to follow someone who's in the dark.

[Reach]

ALSO: WHY DOES THIS THING HATE ME?!  SOMEONE TELL ME WHY THE CODE NEVER WORKS!

The quote function only works with a maximum of ten quotes. Sorry about that, VP.

 

I have edited your post.

[Ouroboros]

This is almost amusing.

Yes, it surely is.

 

You ask for evidence and I give it. Without giving any evidence of your own to invalidate mine, you attempt to attack my intelligence by saying “that isn’t evidence”.

You quoted some people, and made an attempt to an argument, but your argument is “The Unknown is God.”

Your evidence is quotes from a dead historian, and from a couple of scientists that might be wrong.

You claim more and more scientists believe in God, without giving us the site or reference to that statistics.

 

I gave you solid evidence that the universe has not always existed. You have offered nothing to refute that. In fact, many of you seem to concede that point. It there by follows that if it has not always existed and it exists now, at some point it must have been created. Logic tells me that in order for something to be created there must be something to create it.

 

Exactly where did I lose you folks?

Aaargh! Where did we lose you?

 

Ok, I agree that universe has not always existed.

 

Done!

 

Now what?

 

What happened before the universe came to existence?

 

The answer is: Unknown, we don’t know, no clue, nothing can prove anything, no evidence, Null, Nil, nada, nothing, God with pink slippers, Santa Claus, Marshmallows…

 

You are absolutely right. I’m finally convinced. It was a sentient being with the intent to create everything from marshmallows, and his name is Bob!

 

Not Knowing is not the same as Knowing it is God.

 

We don’t know what came before the universe, because when we use the word “Before”, it’s a word that is invented and only understood in this current universe. You need to talk about a Meta-Before, the existence of Time outside our time, Space outside our space, the place where the supposed God live. If you maintain that God created the Universe from Nothing, than I must ask you were is God? Is he in space or outside? How can he be outside something? How can he be inside? Maybe there is nothing outside! Maybe there is something outside? Where did He get the Nothing from to create the Universe?

 

The best any of you could come up with was some double talking gibberish of me equating a “beginning” with “creation”

But you ARE! You said it, “the beginning must have a beginner.”

 

Ahhh, YEA. That seems to be a LOGICAL conclusion.

 

Is it your belief that once the universe did not exist and now it does existed, but it was never created?????

It came to existence; it was “created” by an accident, not by intent.

It’s how you use the words that confused you. You call it creation, and creation has to have a creator, therefore the creator must exist, because the universe is a creation.

 

But if we don’t use the word “Creation”, and let us say, the universe is not a creation, is an effect of an unknown, and most likely accidental, cause. Then God is a moot idea.

 

Is that logical??? Were you being serious???

 

You actually accuse ME of “not getting it”. Have you even read your own posts?

I’m not sure if you really understand what we’re saying, because you keep on getting back to Creation and Creator talk. While there’s nothing to show there is a Creation in the first place. It’s all depending on your choice of words!

 

The Universe exists, but you chose the word Creation, I just say, It Came to Existence.

 

Don’t just bash, show YOUR intelligence. I gave evidence in support of my argument. Now you do the same.

Your argument was intelligent? And your support is a couple of quotes? You discuss with the same religious methods as your faith. “The book says so, someone else said so and so, therefore it’s proven.” You have no evidence for God, but there’s evidence for the Big Bang. So what is your problem? Show us the “God energy” before time and space. There is none!

 

 

Give evidence to refute the universe had a beginning

I didn’t refute that.

 

Give evidence to support (what I consider to be a ridiculous) idea of the universe having a beginning without ever being created

“Ridiculous” is not an argument or logic.

 

Give evidence and/or a theory as to how the universe could have been created without the presence of an all-mighty supernatural being.

I gave you several “imaginary” scenarios, but they don’t fit you.

 

So again, I chose the simple explanation instead of the supernatural explanation.

Occam’s Razor slashes again!

 

This thread started as the argument that St Paul claims that “Atheists know there is a God, because Nature is the proof”, and I have given plenty of arguments why Nature proves the opposite. To me Nature proves No God, so St Paul is wrong.

[Ouroboros]

Order is an inherent property of reality, pure and simple, naturally prescribed transcendentally. There's nothing particularly special or rare about it, because the struggle between "Order" and "Chaos" is an illusion.

 

The question then reduces to a scientific matter... CAN such seemingly miraculously ordered things as life come about without the intelligent guidance of a God? I would point you towards the success of evolutionary biology.

 

That was a beautiful presentation.

I will save that one.

[white_raven23]

INVICTUS!

 

Granted, I did not specifically request one when I originally posted......but I would appreciate a response to my earlier post. It's post # 68.

 

I would appreciate a reply. Especially as I believe my post makes your creator argument irrelevant.

[invictus1967]

How seriously can I take you if your only rebuttals are insults? How can you take yourselves seriously? You have no evidence, theories, or even a thought to offer in opposition. Only insults combined with “I am right you are wrong”. And you call me smug.

 

The only argument you have is that you don’t like mine. You have no argument of your own, essentially you have nothing.

 

Pointing that out is not me being smug; it is just stating what is obvious after reading through all the insults and finding nothing else.

 

“Free thinkers”? Yea, right.

 

Your eagerness to reject evidence to support a created universe with no apparent reason (or you have yet to give me one) is exactly what Romans 1 is talking about.

 

I am not trying to prove Christianity, the Bible, or disprove evolution. I am simply stating that the evidence suggest a created universe as opposed to an eternal universe. This further suggests the existence of a creator. A creator I call God. Not Bible God, or Christian God, simply God.

 

You guys are trying to convince me the evidence suggests no such thing yet you have no opinion as to what else it could suggest. Nor do you offer any evidence or theories of your own as to why mine should be rejected.

 

I am not asking you to “prove a negative” or anything else. Just tell me what you believe and give it a supporting argument. That is all I am asking.

 

Or even still, just be a “free thinker” and actually think. Feel “free” to generate your own hypothesis with or without evidence and give me that.

 

At this point, I really don’t care what you give me, just give me something. Don’t just cast insults and think that is enough to convince me or anyone else that I am wrong. I doubt you are even convincing yourselves.

 

Give me an opposing theory.

 

I dare you