QUESTION FOR ATHEIST

questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
QUESTION FOR ATHEIST

How was the world created. I have heard 2 basic arguments. Out of nothing came this dust or these particles? Or this dust or particles always existed. Was wondering what you would say was the creation story?


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: How was

questions wrote:

How was the world created. I have heard 2 basic arguments. Out of nothing came this dust or these particles? Or this dust or particles always existed. Was wondering what you would say was the creation story?

 

It is incorrect to ask an Atheist how the world was "created". I would say that the general consensus among them all is Metaphysical Naturalism.

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
You will have to explain

You will have to explain that one for me.


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
  questions wrote: You

 

questions wrote:
You will have to explain that one for me.

 

They do not believe that the Universe was "created" by any means. The majority as I know (being cautious here), believe that the Universe(s) is a universal constant. The method of this thought can be traced to a newly formed theory known as the Multi-Verse (a hypothesis not yet testable or ever), but an old concept developed by Atheists philosophers before the rise of the Big Bang Theory. 

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


AtheistInWonderland
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 80
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Matter and/or energy has

Matter and/or energy has always existed whether there is a multiverse or not. There could never have been a time when absolutely nothing existed.

"From nothing - nothing comes." - Some Christian apologist

I say that simple matter and/or energy has always existed and things change over time. Many theists say something as complex as a god has always existed. I know of nothing that starts off complex. If something as complex as a god exists, it would have to have evolved over a very long period of time.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
I assume when you say "the

I assume when you say "the world" you mean Earth.

Like M said, this isn't so much about atheism, but a scientific naturalism. Also if something is created, then there's a creator. The scientific explanation needs no creator.

I'm not an expert on this, but basically it's thought that planets are formed from matter spewed from supernovas that get attracted together by gravity. Most of this matter turns into another star, but the leftovers become the planets, and other objects like asteroids, around that star.

You can read about this on Wikipedia.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
This thread has been

This thread has been 'cleaned' of excrement posted in the form of attack.

Let's stick to the question at hand from questions or pose others relevant to the topic.

Please. 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Athiestinwonderland said

Athiestinwonderland said "From nothing - nothing comes." - Some Christian apologist

That was my point nothing can come from nothing. I was only trying to see how the athiest says the world that we know came into existance. I was just curious.

If I understand correctly, which I may not, You say that this matter has always existed and that it changed. If it existed forever then it has changed as much as it could have change in the eternity past. I'm no scientist so I might be way off, but what caused these changes. If you say that it is evolving then it had to evolve from a beginning and it would evolve as much as it could in eternity past. At some point thier must be a start. You say that if there is a God he would have to evolve, but if their is a God then why does he have to live by the rules of nature which He created. 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
questions

questions wrote:

Athiestinwonderland said "From nothing - nothing comes." - Some Christian apologist

That was my point nothing can come from nothing. I was only trying to see how the athiest says the world that we know came into existance. I was just curious.

If I understand correctly, which I may not, You say that this matter has always existed and that it changed. If it existed forever then it has changed as much as it could have change in the eternity past. I'm no scientist so I might be way off, but what caused these changes. If you say that it is evolving then it had to evolve from a beginning and it would evolve as much as it could in eternity past. At some point thier must be a start. You say that if there is a God he would have to evolve, but if their is a God then why does he have to live by the rules of nature which He created.

Becareful with use of the word "evolve". I'm going to assume you mean just "change", not "be natrually selected for certain traits."

-----

Actually, there does not need to be a start. There can be a start to our particular universe, but there is no reason that an infinite regress or loop of universes, one causing the next to exist, can't exist. One of the mistakes of the "first cause" argument for god is the assumption that the must be an absolute beginning.

-----

The Earth and other planets were formed from stellar debris that probably formed some sort of accretion disk around the Sun as it started its life.

Now, as far as the universe goes, from evidence we can see, at some point in the past, the universe was at some point much smaller and denser than it is today. Due to the nature of that environment, we don't currently have the tools/know-how to determine what happened before that (not that "before that" really existed due to the nature of space-time... time would not have existed).

Anyway, there are number of theories, though. Among them are: the particle that gave birth to the big bang appeared much as we observe particles appearing from quantum fluctuations of space-time (they are formed out of the background energy of space, so they don't violate any laws of physics), or the start of our universe coincided with the end of another in some infinite (possible looping) cycle.

A more recently presented theory says that the universe will keep expanding faster and faster and basically tear itself into an infinite number of new universes which would each produce a new big bang type of event within itself. 

(Again, as said previously, atheism does not involve making particular claims on the origin of the universe.)

-Triften


AtheistInWonderland
RRS local affiliate
Posts: 80
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Questions wrote: That was

Questions wrote:
That was my point nothing can come from nothing. I was only trying to see how the athiest says the world that we know came into existance. I was just curious.

If I understand correctly, which I may not, You say that this matter has always existed and that it changed. If it existed forever then it has changed as much as it could have change in the eternity past. I'm no scientist so I might be way off, but what caused these changes. If you say that it is evolving then it had to evolve from a beginning and it would evolve as much as it could in eternity past. At some point thier must be a start. You say that if there is a God he would have to evolve, but if their is a God then why does he have to live by the rules of nature which He created.

 
I said that matter and/or energy has always existed..not this universe. I don't know what there was prior to the big bang other than it couldn't have been absolutely nothing. Natural laws exist in this universe. I don't know what laws existed prior to this universe.

Describe what you mean by "At some point thier must be a start." I thought we agreed that something can't come from nothing?

If anything caused matter to exist then by definition it is independent of it. It would be up to you to demonstrate that something exists independent of natural law. When I spoke of a god having to evolve I meant that of all the things we have knowledge about, nothing starts off complex. If you are speaking about things in which we have no knowledge about then why even posit it in the first place?


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: How was

questions wrote:

How was the world created. I have heard 2 basic arguments. Out of nothing came this dust or these particles? Or this dust or particles always existed. Was wondering what you would say was the creation story?

My take on it:

There was never literally "nothing". That would violate the first law of thermodynamics and overturn all of physics as we understand it. Somthing NEVER comes from literally nothing.

It is theists who insist upon a creation ex nihlo, from literally nothing. Are you now positing that God didn't create the universe from nothing, that He didn't simply say "Let there be Light" and make it so, or that God Himself must have had a creator? No, I think not. The theist position IS one of creation ex nihlo, an atheist wouldn't be caught dead believing something that foolish.

Atheists are very well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, and it is this very concept that makes what theists propose, a creation ex nihlo, ridiculous.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because "nothing" is an incoherent concept. "Nothing" is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because "nothing" quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing, but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories included the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

The most lucid theory going at the moment was proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the ?no boundary proposal?. Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it ? pretty much what I?ve laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Smolin's theory of fecund universes illustrate what I'm trying to describe quite well, I think. He essentially theorizes that each black hole is the begininning of a new universe, and there is evidence to support this. What we believe happened at the big bang and what we observe to happen at black holes are quite similar.

In the end, naturalistic explanations of why we are here are infinitiley less ad hoc than supernaturalistic ones, and that's what should concern us as critical thinkers.
 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Theists do not argue

Theists do not argue something from nothing.  They either believe or reason that the material comes from non-material.  Non-material is usually rendered 'spirit'.  This can be deduced from the form of the material world as it is observed.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:
Theists do not argue something from nothing. They either believe or reason that the material comes from non-material. Non-material is usually rendered 'spirit'. This can be deduced from the form of the material world as it is observed.

WTF is non-material? You may as well call it magic or "ether" - they are equally scientiffically and logically invalid. "Non-material" is equal to "non-existent". If it ain't matte-energy or space-time, we frankly have no way of registering it, let alone saying it exists. You can't simply invoke magic to get out of a problem, sorry.

The standard Abrahamic interpretation is that God did create the universe and world ex nihilio. What, exactly, was God manipulating in the following:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." - We all know that from Genesis - What waters is God moving over if he's not yet made them, btw?

"I implore you, my child, observe heaven and earth, consider all that is in them, and acknowledge that God made them out of what did not exist, and that mankind comes into being in the same way. Do not fear this executioner, but prove yourself worthy of your brothers, and make death welcome, so that in the day of mercy I may receive you back in your brothers' company." - If you want to go to the Jews and Maccabees.

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. " - in John

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" - in Psalms

 Need I go on?

 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Yellow No. 5, your comment

Yellow No. 5, your comment was

"WTF is non-material? You may as well call it magic or "ether" - they are equally scientiffically and logically invalid. "Non-material" is equal to "non-existent". If it ain't matte-energy or space-time, we frankly have no way of registering it, let alone saying it exists. You can't simply invoke magic to get out of a problem, sorry."

Non-material is not the same as non-existent.  I am not postulating some nebulous ether or magic.  I am suggesting to you a different way of seeing reality.  For example.  Rather than assume an empiricists attitude (only what can be obtained via the senses is important), why not assume a rationalists outlook (let us begin with the mind). 

Non-materialists do not conceive of what is generally known as 'spirit' like its some rarefied gas or whatever, that cannot be sensed.  Spirit is by definition non-material.  Only a materialist would concieve of the idea of spirit as something qualitatively the same as something material.  By making this error they are right to reject it.  But spirit is of the same substance as for example 'justice' or 'love' or whatever.  An actual thing from mental point of view, but not a thing from a physical point of view.

A supernaturalist accepts that the world accessible by the mind is actually real.  This world, if you want to call it a world, (not a place in the physical sense you understand, to use an analogy, we use the term 'cyberspace' although this just means a 'space' of ideas) is what Plato meant when he spoke of 'Forms' or what Yung called the 'Archetypes'.

By way of illustration.  Think about your dreams.  You apparently find yourself in a physical world.  This world is a product of mind.  In the same way, the material world is a product of Spirit (spirit is not mind though).


newmodeltheist
Theist
newmodeltheist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Also Yellow.... you seem to

Also Yellow.... you seem to have an obsession the the Judeo-Christian God.  In this way your attacking supernaturalism with a theological argument.  False ideas about God are just that, they do not provide an argument against supernaturalism.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
newmodeltheist

newmodeltheist wrote:

Non-material is not the same as non-existent. I am not postulating some nebulous ether or magic. I am suggesting to you a different way of seeing reality. For example. Rather than assume an empiricists attitude (only what can be obtained via the senses is important), why not assume a rationalists outlook (let us begin with the mind).

No, you are asserting something we have NO evidence for is existant. What properties does the "spirit" have? Does it have mass? Is it radioactive? Has it electrical charge? Does it take up space?

Don't give me any shit about the non-material being valid or existant until you come to me with EVIDENCE of the non-material. 

Quote:
Non-materialists do not conceive of what is generally known as 'spirit' like its some rarefied gas or whatever, that cannot be sensed. Spirit is by definition non-material. Only a materialist would concieve of the idea of spirit as something qualitatively the same as something material. By making this error they are right to reject it. But spirit is of the same substance as for example 'justice' or 'love' or whatever. An actual thing from mental point of view, but not a thing from a physical point of view.

Love and justice are emotions and human concepts. They exist in our brains as electrochemical signals. Show me a couple in love, and I can point to you the oxytocin in their brains and the stimulation of the hypothalamus. Something like justice is more vague, but it is based upon empathy, which can also be measured.

I can show you evidence of love and justice as phyical manifestations as well.

Show me evidence of something NON-material. You cannot. You appeal to magic, to emotion, to fancy. Can you tell me where my spirit is? 

Quote:
A supernaturalist accepts that the world accessible by the mind is actually real. This world, if you want to call it a world, (not a place in the physical sense you understand, to use an analogy, we use the term 'cyberspace' although this just means a 'space' of ideas) is what Plato meant when he spoke of 'Forms' or what Yung called the 'Archetypes'.

Now you are simply talking out of your ass. Cyberspace, again, is a REAL entity. I can point to the computers, the modems, the fiber optics, the electrons, the bits of data being transferred.

NO analogy you can proffer will do the trick, because you are equating apples and oranges. You cannot say the supernatural or the non-material is "like" this - tell me what it acutally IS, and how I can confirm it. You cannot. 

Quote:
By way of illustration. Think about your dreams. You apparently find yourself in a physical world. This world is a product of mind. In the same way, the material world is a product of Spirit (spirit is not mind though).

WoooooWoooooooo!

I'm sorry. Again, stop making useless anaolgies and tell me what the non-material is rather than throw new-age gargage at me. Give me something I can wrap my mind, or better, my fingers or a scientific intrument around.

Good luck with that. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Non-material is not

Quote:
Non-material is not the same as non-existent.  I am not postulating some nebulous ether or magic.  I am suggesting to you a different way of seeing reality.  For example.  Rather than assume an empiricists attitude (only what can be obtained via the senses is important), why not assume a rationalists outlook (let us begin with the mind).

"Starting with the mind", one always gets everything at the conceptual level. I start with the mind and define God as the most perfect entity available (error just to emphasize). Could God be so perfect if he didn't exist? No, he couldn't, so God must exist. I'm sure you've heard of this before. But this is only at the conceptual level. God exists as a concept (which frankly nobody can deny, since we're talking about him).

The problem arises when such concepts are validated against reality. We have whole series of mathematics (of the non-Euclidean type, defined vector spaces, defined numeration systems, etc.), for instance, that work perfectly at conceptual level, but fail miserably at real level.

To conclude: one can start with the conceptual level, but the only thing he will get is concepts. Reality has certain laws that one must obey, whereas concept doesn't.

Quote:
Non-materialists do not conceive of what is generally known as 'spirit' like its some rarefied gas or whatever, that cannot be sensed.  Spirit is by definition non-material.  Only a materialist would concieve of the idea of spirit as something qualitatively the same as something material.  By making this error they are right to reject it.  But spirit is of the same substance as for example 'justice' or 'love' or whatever.  An actual thing from mental point of view, but not a thing from a physical point of view.

So you are practically asserting that "spirit" is actually a concept defined to simplify language and logics when one wants to refer to feelings and emotions, etc. in general, without jumping to one specific part of it.

I will, based on your definition, give you something similar: we define the group formed by natural numbers, the operation of multiplication and the operation of addition. With the rules that everyone knows on these, you get what is called arithmetics in natural numbers. All of its elements exist in nature the same way as "love" or "justice" exist.

The question is: does that group actually exist in reality? Answer: no.

Quote:
A supernaturalist accepts that the world accessible by the mind is actually real.  This world, if you want to call it a world, (not a place in the physical sense you understand, to use an analogy, we use the term 'cyberspace' although this just means a 'space' of ideas) is what Plato meant when he spoke of 'Forms' or what Yung called the 'Archetypes'.

Do take into consideration that both Plato and Yung were using them on conceptual level, not on real level. It goes the same as non-Euclidean geometry.

Yes, I agree that in concept, they exist. But only in concept.

Quote:
By way of illustration.  Think about your dreams.  You apparently find yourself in a physical world.  This world is a product of mind.  In the same way, the material world is a product of Spirit (spirit is not mind though).

I "apparently" find myself into a physical world.

I've given enough time to study dreamland and how it works, and I have come to the conclusion that everyone with enough willpower can end up telling a vivid dream and reality apart. And always remember what the vivid dream was about. Dreaming is a process of the brain based on the self-conservation instinct included within neurons ("instinct" isn't exactly the best term, but it's the only one I've got). Coherent flashes of neurons result in certain patterns being extracted from the mind informational matrix and being given to the reception centres (visual, auditive, etc., sometimes even motor centres). These patterns might contain absolutely anything: a situation one has encountered, a calculus of probability of something to happen (premonition dreams), fears (nightmares), etc. The centres then start extracting other linked information which they use to interpret what they "see" (actually are given to "see&quotEye-wink, thus creating a dream.

By altering one's sleep/wake patterns, one may override the "deep sleep shutdown" phase, and may start to involve conscious decision into a dream, in which case he can realize it's only a dream, and may start actually interacting with it.

This is actually the best example of "do we actually have free will?", since one may argue that he has a certain free will within his dream. This assumption is wrong, however, as the brain generates that impression in an effort to not alter the normal thinking patterns (otherwise we would all become psychos after or first night dreaming). Thereofre it is only an "illusion" of free will, all actions being pre-determined.

Introducing consciousness elliminates the need of pre-determined will, that's why one can realize he's in a dream and start controlling it.

Do not try something like that at home, though, because of two reasons:

- long practice can lead do SDS

- when you're having a nightmare, the brain doesn't use its pre-determined patterns anymore, thus, if, for instance, you are dreaming of falling, and the ground is just about to smash you into a pancake, the dream will not end immediately; needless to say that can be very unpleasant

I have just explained what happens in the dream world and why someone with lesser insight would consider it as you did above and make the false analogy that you did.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
questions wrote:

How was the world created. I have heard 2 basic arguments. Out of nothing came this dust or these particles? Or this dust or particles always existed. Was wondering what you would say was the creation story?

My take on it:

There was never literally "nothing". That would violate the first law of thermodynamics and overturn all of physics as we understand it. Somthing NEVER comes from literally nothing.

It is theists who insist upon a creation ex nihlo, from literally nothing. Are you now positing that God didn't create the universe from nothing, that He didn't simply say "Let there be Light" and make it so, or that God Himself must have had a creator? No, I think not. The theist position IS one of creation ex nihlo, an atheist wouldn't be caught dead believing something that foolish.

Atheists are very well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, and it is this very concept that makes what theists propose, a creation ex nihlo, ridiculous.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because "nothing" is an incoherent concept. "Nothing" is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because "nothing" quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing, but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories included the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

The most lucid theory going at the moment was proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the ?no boundary proposal?. Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it ? pretty much what I?ve laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Smolin's theory of fecund universes illustrate what I'm trying to describe quite well, I think. He essentially theorizes that each black hole is the begininning of a new universe, and there is evidence to support this. What we believe happened at the big bang and what we observe to happen at black holes are quite similar.

In the end, naturalistic explanations of why we are here are infinitiley less ad hoc than supernaturalistic ones, and that's what should concern us as critical thinkers.

I think you miss understood me. I was saying what is the atheist view of the world. I believe the world was created out of nothing, but not from nothing. God spoke and the world became. Ex Nihlo. It is almost like God thought it and it became. Science if I'm right, might not be, says that matter can not be created nor destroyed. But here we are. So at some time it must have been created.  I'm not argueing just wanting to know what the other side says. 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: I believe

questions wrote:
I believe the world was created out of nothing, but not from nothing.


-- I'm puzzled by what you are trying to get across with this statement. "Out of" and "from" are two ways of saying the same thing: first there was nothing, then there was something. Ex Nihilo. If you're trying to equivocate either "out of" or "from" to mean "composed of," then obviously, something cannot be composed of nothing. "Something" and "nothing," in this context, are mutually exclusive.

questions wrote:
Science ... says that matter can not be created nor destroyed. But here we are. So at some time it must have been created.


Pay attention:

questions wrote:
Science ... says that matter can not be created ...


questions wrote:
So at some time it must have been created.


See the error?


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
questions

questions wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
questions wrote:

How was the world created. I have heard 2 basic arguments. Out of nothing came this dust or these particles? Or this dust or particles always existed. Was wondering what you would say was the creation story?

My take on it:

There was never literally "nothing". That would violate the first law of thermodynamics and overturn all of physics as we understand it. Somthing NEVER comes from literally nothing.

It is theists who insist upon a creation ex nihlo, from literally nothing. Are you now positing that God didn't create the universe from nothing, that He didn't simply say "Let there be Light" and make it so, or that God Himself must have had a creator? No, I think not. The theist position IS one of creation ex nihlo, an atheist wouldn't be caught dead believing something that foolish.

Atheists are very well aware of the first law of thermodynamics, and it is this very concept that makes what theists propose, a creation ex nihlo, ridiculous.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because "nothing" is an incoherent concept. "Nothing" is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because "nothing" quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing, but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories included the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

The most lucid theory going at the moment was proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the ?no boundary proposal?. Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it ? pretty much what I?ve laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Smolin's theory of fecund universes illustrate what I'm trying to describe quite well, I think. He essentially theorizes that each black hole is the begininning of a new universe, and there is evidence to support this. What we believe happened at the big bang and what we observe to happen at black holes are quite similar.

In the end, naturalistic explanations of why we are here are infinitiley less ad hoc than supernaturalistic ones, and that's what should concern us as critical thinkers.

I think you miss understood me.

I think you misunderstand what ex nililo means.

Quote:
I was saying what is the atheist view of the world. I believe the world was created out of nothing, but not from nothing.

This makes NO sense. How can one make something "out of" "nothing" ? What, exactly, is nothing? Think before you answer that.

Quote:
God spoke and the world became. Ex Nihlo. It is almost like God thought it and it became. Science if I'm right, might not be, says that matter can not be created nor destroyed. But here we are. So at some time it must have been created. I'm not argueing just wanting to know what the other side says.

You misunderstand the first law. If something cannot be created or destroyed it obviously requires no creation or creator. Matter-energy, in my view, is simply a property of existence, and that existence exisits is about as axiomatic as one can get.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
There is no definite atheist

There is no definite atheist view, like how there is no definite theist view.


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
This may seem

This may seem counter-productive but when asked where the universe and life came from, I always tend to reply: "I don't know" because, well, I don't know.

With that said, to put a 'creator' at the 'beginning' is rather premature given that we don't know if there ever was a beginning, nor is their any evidence of any creative intelligence that predates, well, tetrapods. I can see why many cultures have mythologized about the beginning of the universe because, in our lives, we all see the finite cycle of birth, growth and death in many things ...

The point is, we just don't know - we should def. investigate and look into this matter scientifically (yes, that means looking for naturalistic explanations for phenomena) and hope that a theory of the universe as elegant as Darwin's theory of evolution is developed to fit the facts. But unless we have some expertise in physics and whatnot, it'd be a little dumb to say definitively what the answer is.

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Laker-taker

Laker-taker wrote:
questions wrote:
I believe the world was created out of nothing, but not from nothing.


-- I'm puzzled by what you are trying to get across with this statement. "Out of" and "from" are two ways of saying the same thing: first there was nothing, then there was something. Ex Nihilo. If you're trying to equivocate either "out of" or "from" to mean "composed of," then obviously, something cannot be composed of nothing. "Something" and "nothing," in this context, are mutually exclusive.

questions wrote:
Science ... says that matter can not be created nor destroyed. But here we are. So at some time it must have been created.


Pay attention:

questions wrote:
Science ... says that matter can not be created ...


questions wrote:
So at some time it must have been created.


See the error?

 

Sorry for not being clear. What i mean is that there was nothing  no earth, no air, no particles. But I believe there was God. He created this world out of nothing. It was created out of nothing from God.

The next thing is Science says matter cannot be created nor destroyed but at the same time i see CREATION, and you asked "see the error". Yes i see it I was wondering how the athiest explains it.  

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote:   Sorry

questions wrote:

 

Sorry for not being clear. What i mean is that there was nothing no earth, no air, no particles. But I believe there was God. He created this world out of nothing. It was created out of nothing from God.

The next thing is Science says matter cannot be created nor destroyed but at the same time i see CREATION, and you asked "see the error". Yes i see it I was wondering how the athiest explains it.

 

Well, honestly... someone nailed it earlier: atheists need not have a particular opinion about the universe or existence except that the atheist does not believe in a god. Regardless, several of us do share a perspective of the universe due to the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of matter/energy), as people have been trying to point out.

Bottom line: we do not need an explanation of creation (ex nihilo) when matter/energy cannot be created.

Now, you're saying you "see CREATION," and by that, you mean the existence of the universe, galaxies, our solar system, us, etc.; that's what I'm gleaning from that. In other words, you're taking a common religious word to denote the universe -- "creation," as in "God's creation" -- and assuming that when we call it the "creation" (as a noun, rather than a verb) that means that it must have been created. Yet, if we point to a furry, four-legged animal that barks and wags it's tail when it sees you, and we say "gerbil," does that mean that it is one?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Please keep in mind

Please keep in mind although it is great that people ask quetions about sceince, lets never forget that there are apologists who will jump all over the skeptic with "you dont have all the answers therefore my deity exists" Bullcrap.

So in answering the the questions about science, dont be afraid to admit when you dont know, but be aware also that it does not and never will amount to mythological magical fiction ever being a reality. Whatever science has not yet observed is as natural as an atom and altough we dont know the bounderies of these "combos" yet, there still are absurdities that will safely  be put in file 13.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
I understand the concern -

I understand the concern - I feel I took the necessary steps to rebuff any claim that an "I don't know" means, "oh, let's stick [the goddess] in there !"

Dig?

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
To disprove something that

To disprove something that doesn't exist is impossible. You need proof. A lack of proof, proves nothing. Although I argue there is plenty of proof of a God. My point is we should all be open minded that if there is a Supernatural and you're only looking for the natural (science), thats all you will probably find. The crook doesn't find the cop for the same reason that the athiest doesn't find God. He isn't looking for Him. At the same time I am well aware of my own bias. Stick proof in front of my face that goes against the Bible, I'll deny it. You must be wrong. At the same time do not deny that science and evolution is proven to have flaws over and over and God (supernatural being) would clearify some these flaws, but many people here in this forum deny it.

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1247
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
questions wrote: To

questions wrote:
To disprove something that doesn't exist is impossible.

Agreed - which is why I can't prove that god doesn't exist. 

questions wrote:
You need proof. A lack of proof, proves nothing.

Agreed again.  You're on a roll, playa! 

questions wrote:
Although I argue there is plenty of proof of a God.

Disagreed.  Kindly stop arguing that there is plenty of proof, and start showing plenty of proof. 

questions wrote:
My point is we should all be open minded that if there is a Supernatural and you're only looking for the natural (science), thats all you will probably find.

And without the restriction of science and reason, you will pretty much find anything you want to find:  god, Elvis, Mr. Giraffe... 

questions wrote:
The crook doesn't find the cop for the same reason that the athiest doesn't find God. He isn't looking for Him.

Are you suggesting I'm a "crook"?  The crook may not be looking for the cop, but the cop himself does show up on occasion... 

questions wrote:
At the same time I am well aware of my own bias.

Well, that's no good.  Bias prevents you from thinking rationally.  Go soak in the tub until your bias is gone, then hurry back. 

questions wrote:
Stick proof in front of my face that goes against the Bible, I'll deny it.

Stick proof in front of my face that goes against the Harry Potter stories.

questions wrote:
You must be wrong. At the same time do not deny that science and evolution is proven to have flaws over and over...

Has anyone actually denied that?  To think scientifically is to be open-minded, and acknowledge that new evidence may reveal flaws in previous claims.  

questions wrote:
...and God (supernatural being) would clearify some these flaws, but many people here in this forum deny it.

god (the supernatural being, as opposed to....?) would "clearify" some of these flaws?  Great!  Send him (or her) on in!  We could certainly use his "clearification"! 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

questions wrote:
To disprove something that doesn't exist is impossible.

Agreed - which is why I can't prove that god doesn't exist.

questions wrote:
You need proof. A lack of proof, proves nothing.

Agreed again. You're on a roll, playa!

questions wrote:
Although I argue there is plenty of proof of a God.

Disagreed. Kindly stop arguing that there is plenty of proof, and start showing plenty of proof.

questions wrote:
My point is we should all be open minded that if there is a Supernatural and you're only looking for the natural (science), thats all you will probably find.

And without the restriction of science and reason, you will pretty much find anything you want to find: god, Elvis, Mr. Giraffe...

questions wrote:
The crook doesn't find the cop for the same reason that the athiest doesn't find God. He isn't looking for Him.

Are you suggesting I'm a "crook"? The crook may not be looking for the cop, but the cop himself does show up on occasion...

questions wrote:
At the same time I am well aware of my own bias.

Well, that's no good. Bias prevents you from thinking rationally. Go soak in the tub until your bias is gone, then hurry back.

questions wrote:
Stick proof in front of my face that goes against the Bible, I'll deny it.

Stick proof in front of my face that goes against the Harry Potter stories.

questions wrote:
You must be wrong. At the same time do not deny that science and evolution is proven to have flaws over and over...

Has anyone actually denied that? To think scientifically is to be open-minded, and acknowledge that new evidence may reveal flaws in previous claims.

questions wrote:
...and God (supernatural being) would clearify some these flaws, but many people here in this forum deny it.

god (the supernatural being, as opposed to....?) would "clearify" some of these flaws? Great! Send him (or her) on in! We could certainly use his "clearification"!

Since we agree on the first 2 parts I'll skip them

For my proof of God (hold your breath). Look in the sky see the sun (not to long you'll burn your eyes) See the moon at night look at the clouds. Man didn't make this, nature can't make nature. Only a God could do this. To say that we are here by luck and all of the pieces of our universe happened by luck would be like saying that I had a bag that had clogs, gears, and pieces of metal in it. Then I fell and out came a watch. Whats the chances. Evolution says we all came from the same gene pool. The trees the plants and all people. Yet DNA research that is coming out now is proving that to be wrong. You ask how would a God answer these questions? If God made then world, then the world's creation happened when he  created it. Evolution has based many of its proofs off of lies and deception. Such as some of the charts (such as the ones about embryos) and some of the skeletons that were found to be false. Now I am well aware the lies of a few does not mean that all are like this. More than lies in Christianity, which there are many Christians who have lied for their own benefit,  but many have made Christians look bad by just by misinterpreting scripture. And to claim that many scientist are open minded is false. Evolution is the bible of many athiest. Show them where they're wrong and they flattly deny it.  To say that many people in this forum are opened minded is silly. Many deny that a man named Jesus ever existed. That is a really stupid statement, made out of hatred of Christianity. History has record of Him not just Christian sources, but Jewish and Roman. Proof is right in front your face and you deny it, because of your bias. 

 

Believe me I say all this becuase of one reason. I do not want to win an arguement, if I'm right there is a God and those that reject Him will go to Hell. 

Humor me. Before you go to sleep tonight, ask this God I speak of to reveal Himself to you.  Ask Him to show you the truth. What do you have to lose. Maybe I'll be famous, I'm the one that got the athiest to say a prayer. 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: Although I

questions wrote:
Although I argue there is plenty of proof of a God. My point is we should all be open minded that if there is a Supernatural and you're only looking for the natural (science), thats all you will probably find.

Let's consider what you would be trying to say here. "Proof" is pretty conclusive, but requires evidence, so I think what you're really suggesting is that "there is plenty of [evidence] of a God." And where do we get evidence? Observations in the natural world, of course; this is where science gets started. (I'm writing with an eye toward concision, here, so this is quite simplified.)

Now, "supernatural" means, literally, "above nature," but I think a better way to think of it is as a negating term, i.e. "not natural." So, whatever exists and can be observed in the natural world is not supernatural, and the two terms are mutually exclusive. Further, the supernatural then, by definition, cannot interact with, or in, the natural world and can have no effect on our natural universe, else it would be natural, since that is our term for any observable object or phenomenon.

In claiming that God is supernatural, you are saying that he is safe, not only from being disproved, but most importantly, from any possibility of gathering evidence regarding him, and in fact negates any possibility of God interacting with the natural world. In light of this, how did you come to the conclusion that God exists? What grounds have we to even claim that anything supernatural exists or operates?

You could attempt to provide us with evidence for whatever conclusion you like--feel free to do so--but you would only end up providing evidence for a conclusion about the natural world, to which you did not set out to justify.

On the other hand, if you were to claim that God is natural, then he could not have created the natural world, considering that he would have had to exist prior to creating himself.  That impossibility notwithstanding, a natural God would just be another thing in the cosmos, along for the ride like ourselves...  not quite what you were going for.

Additionally, how exactly would you expect science--which is based on observations of the natural world, and is in fact all we are capable of to begin with--to "look for" the supernatural, since every time we observe or explain something it is necessarily natural?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1247
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
questions wrote: For my

questions wrote:

For my proof of God (hold your breath). Look in the sky see the sun (not to long you'll burn your eyes) See the moon at night look at the clouds. Man didn't make this, nature can't make nature. Only a God could do this.

I asked for proof. Not for some impromptu slam poetry.

Well, let's go with this: While you're looking at the sun or moon, try looking for an asteroid also - one such as wiped out the dinosaurs millions of years ago, and which would wipe us out if it were to strike. Look in your local cancer ward. Look at New Orleans, post-Katrina. Look at birth defects. Look how a praying mantis gets its head ripped off during the mating process. god did this? god needs therapy.

Can I start breathing again?

questions wrote:
To say that we are here by luck and all of the pieces of our universe happened by luck would be like saying that I had a bag that had clogs, gears, and pieces of metal in it. Then I fell and out came a watch.

Very ingenious, and very original.

By sheer coincidence, there is a video addressing this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_blind_watchmaker

 Humor me and watch it.

questions wrote:

Whats the chances. Evolution says we all came from the same gene pool. The trees the plants and all people. Yet DNA research that is coming out now is proving that to be wrong.

According to whom? god?

questions wrote:
You ask how would a God answer these questions?

I don't believe I did. If god would just show up for once, that would be enough of an answer.

questions wrote:

If God made then world, then the world's creation happened when he created it.

No kidding? If a unicorn bit me on the ass, my ass would be bitten when it bit me. And I'd probably enjoy it.

questions wrote:
Evolution has based many of its proofs off of lies and deception.

Even if that is the case, religion is way ahead in the lies and deception category. If science has even one proof not based on lies and deception, that is one more than religion has.

questions wrote:
Many deny that a man named Jesus ever existed.

No...there were plenty of men named jesus, it was a common name (sort of like "Bob&quotEye-wink. But do I deny that a man named jesus existed who was born of a virgin, blah blah blah, died, un-died, and so on? Well, sure I deny he existed. Because he didn't.

questions wrote:
That is a really stupid statement, made out of hatred of Christianity.

No, it's made out of a love of historical accuracy.

questions wrote:
History has record of Him not just Christian sources, but Jewish and Roman.

Oh really? Like what?

questions wrote:
Proof is right in front your face and you deny it, because of your bias.

Sorry, all I can see right now in front of me is blank space.

questions wrote:
Believe me I say all this becuase of one reason. I do not want to win an arguement, if I'm right there is a God and those that reject Him will go to Hell.

Very ingenious, and very original.

Search around the forums here (or you can pretty much search anywhere) for Pascal' Wager. Humor me.

questions wrote:
Humor me. Before you go to sleep tonight, ask this God I speak of to reveal Himself to you. Ask Him to show you the truth.

I asked for about the first 20 years of my life. Got nothing. How's that for humor?

questions wrote:
What do you have to lose.

Five seconds of my life...which I'll never get back.

questions wrote:
Maybe I'll be famous, I'm the one that got the athiest to say a prayer.

Definitely a resume builder. I heard it makes you popular with the ladies, too.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:

questions wrote:

For my proof of God (hold your breath). Look in the sky see the sun (not to long you'll burn your eyes) See the moon at night look at the clouds. Man didn't make this, nature can't make nature. Only a God could do this.

I asked for proof. Not for some impromptu slam poetry.

Well, let's go with this: While you're looking at the sun or moon, try looking for an asteroid also - one such as wiped out the dinosaurs millions of years ago, and which would wipe us out if it were to strike. Look in your local cancer ward. Look at New Orleans, post-Katrina. Look at birth defects. Look how a praying mantis gets its head ripped off during the mating process. god did this? god needs therapy.

Can I start breathing again?

questions wrote:
To say that we are here by luck and all of the pieces of our universe happened by luck would be like saying that I had a bag that had clogs, gears, and pieces of metal in it. Then I fell and out came a watch.

Very ingenious, and very original.

By sheer coincidence, there is a video addressing this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_blind_watchmaker

Humor me and watch it.

questions wrote:

Whats the chances. Evolution says we all came from the same gene pool. The trees the plants and all people. Yet DNA research that is coming out now is proving that to be wrong.

According to whom? god?

questions wrote:
You ask how would a God answer these questions?

I don't believe I did. If god would just show up for once, that would be enough of an answer.

questions wrote:

If God made then world, then the world's creation happened when he created it.

No kidding? If a unicorn bit me on the ass, my ass would be bitten when it bit me. And I'd probably enjoy it.

questions wrote:
Evolution has based many of its proofs off of lies and deception.

Even if that is the case, religion is way ahead in the lies and deception category. If science has even one proof not based on lies and deception, that is one more than religion has.

questions wrote:
Many deny that a man named Jesus ever existed.

No...there were plenty of men named jesus, it was a common name (sort of like "Bob&quotEye-wink. But do I deny that a man named jesus existed who was born of a virgin, blah blah blah, died, un-died, and so on? Well, sure I deny he existed. Because he didn't.

questions wrote:
That is a really stupid statement, made out of hatred of Christianity.

No, it's made out of a love of historical accuracy.

questions wrote:
History has record of Him not just Christian sources, but Jewish and Roman.

Oh really? Like what?

questions wrote:
Proof is right in front your face and you deny it, because of your bias.

Sorry, all I can see right now in front of me is blank space.

questions wrote:
Believe me I say all this becuase of one reason. I do not want to win an arguement, if I'm right there is a God and those that reject Him will go to Hell.

Very ingenious, and very original.

Search around the forums here (or you can pretty much search anywhere) for Pascal' Wager. Humor me.

questions wrote:
Humor me. Before you go to sleep tonight, ask this God I speak of to reveal Himself to you. Ask Him to show you the truth.

I asked for about the first 20 years of my life. Got nothing. How's that for humor?

questions wrote:
What do you have to lose.

Five seconds of my life...which I'll never get back.

questions wrote:
Maybe I'll be famous, I'm the one that got the athiest to say a prayer.

Definitely a resume builder. I heard it makes you popular with the ladies, too.

Sorry if I made you mad, I don't know your past experience with God. I'm not one to shove anything down anyones throat. If you won't pray to Him tonight don't worry, I'll do it for you. Just about everyone here is after one thing, THE TRUTH. 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1247
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
You haven't made me mad at

You haven't made me mad at all, godly one.  Sorry if I created that impression.  Care to reply to anything I said?

 And one request:  If you're just going to respond with a couple of lines, and not actually use any of the quoted material, just hit "reply" instead of "quote".  Makes for needless scrolling, don't you think?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
sorry for the delayed

sorry for the delayed response, my computer crashed. Maybe scientist should quit trying to disprove God and make a computer that last more than month. Makes me want to cuss, but i'm not allowed too.

Does God cause tragedy? Two fold answer, Yes he controls everything and can fix anything. Sin has brought tragedy into the world. All who repent and believe in Christ will be healed in heaven. Now I know it's so easy for me to say, while I sit here in my upper middle class world and I have my health. I don't understand why things happen. And so often to really good people, but God is much wiser than me. 

When I said "If God made then world, then the world's creation happened when he created it".       It was my attempt at a joke, you asked how would it solve a tough question like how was the world created. Well that is a pretty self explanatory answer.

Who has proven by DNA test that we don't come from the same gene pool, no not God. Scientist.

Then you said there are no proofs in the Bible, at first I thought you were saying nothing in the Bible is true. If so that is a ridiculous statement. Historians use the Bible more than anyother text. They may not believe the miracles and God but they do agree with the battles and the historical stories. But I asume you are saying that the Bible lies about a God. 

If you deny that a man named Jesus claimed to be God, and claimed to be born of a virgin who was actually crucified on a cross, once again you are rejecting the most basic proofs that history can provide. Out of pure hatred for Christianity.  

 And as you asking for God to reveal himself for 20 years of your life I don't what to say. I pray that all who seek him will find him. I will pray for you every day this week. Look for Him.

 I'll leave you with this. Many atheist say that Christians have the problem of evil, but atheist have the problem of love. Out of those dust particles that evolved into our universe today, you beleive love came into existance. What animal shows love the way people do. When does the lion see the gazelle in pain and go and try to comfort it. When does the tiger give all of his possesions to the animals that need them. Man is different. Man has morals. Morals can not come from nature. Man cares and has compasion, nature has instincts. 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: If you

questions wrote:

If you deny that a man named Jesus claimed to be God, and claimed to be born of a virgin who was actually crucified on a cross, once again you are rejecting the most basic proofs that history can provide. Out of pure hatred for Christianity.

No, not hatred.  There just isn't any proof so we don't believe it.

questions wrote:
Morals can not come from nature. Man cares and has compasion, nature has instincts.

Look around the forums and you will see that refuted quite nicely. (Sorry I can't do a link, but my Search doesn't seem to be working tonight.)

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: Makes me

questions wrote:
Makes me want to cuss, but i'm not allowed too.

OK, I gotta ask; why are you not allowed to, and what happens if you do?

Quote:
Does God cause tragedy? Two fold answer, Yes he controls everything and can fix anything. Sin has brought tragedy into the world.

So what your saying is, your omniscient and omnipotent god(the logical impossiblity of this concept notwithstanding), not only purposely allows sin into his world, he also willingly facilitates the birth of humans that he knows will never get to heaven, even though he has the power to change it? You go ahead and tell your god to go fuck himself.

Quote:
All who repent and believe in Christ will be healed in heaven.

Yeah, except those people god put on this earth with the prior knowledge that they will never be able to repent and believe, and thus will never see heaven. See my above remark, and make sure you pass that on to the big man, OK?

Quote:
Historians use the Bible more than anyother text.

Step AWAY from the water bong. The bible has shown to be a very unreliable source when it comes to historical events. Go through the gospels and count all the inconsistencies and contradictions in them. Give me a dollar for each one, and I'll be a rich man.

Quote:
They may not believe the miracles and God but they do agree with the battles and the historical stories. But I asume you are saying that the Bible lies about a God.

Not all of them. Not even close. I might guess that all of your historians are affiliated with Bob Jones or Liberty universities.

Quote:
If you deny that a man named Jesus claimed to be God, and claimed to be born of a virgin who was actually crucified on a cross, once again you are rejecting the most basic proofs that history can provide.

Nonsense. Not one shred of evidence exists. Your idea of proof wouldn't pass a 3 year old's examination

Quote:
Out of pure hatred for Christianity.

Oh, just be quiet.

Quote:
And as you asking for God to reveal himself for 20 years of your life I don't what to say. I pray that all who seek him will find him. I will pray for you every day this week. Look for Him.

I guess we atheists are the doomed masses, put here on earth by your asshat of a god and are pre-destined to rot in hell. Thanks, god! Go fuck a goat!

Quote:
Out of those dust particles that evolved into our universe today, you beleive love came into existance.

Whoever said love comes from "dust particles?" Love is a bioelectric response to stimuli(resident science gurus, by all means correct as you see fit)

Quote:
What animal shows love the way people do. When does the lion see the gazelle in pain and go and try to comfort it. When does the tiger give all of his possesions to the animals that need them. Man is different. Man has morals. Morals can not come from nature. Man cares and has compasion, nature has instincts.

When does the aardvark drop bombs on the llamas because the llamas dont worship King Aardvark? When does the group of young pandas beat an old, decrepit panda to death simply for fun? When do these idiotic comparisons stop?

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
wow, you seem to be a

wow, you seem to be a chipper guy.

so lets get started the thing about the cussing was a joke, my attempt at humor

my all powerfull God gave man with one God like power. The power of choice. He did not make Adam and Eve sin they chose to sin. Thus they brought bad things into this world. If God would not have let man choose he would not of let man love. They would have been robots. Man has caused pain and suffering. As for the message I'm to send to God, I think I'll leave that to you. 

God calls all to be saved but some refuse to except Him. I'm sure you have heard the gospel and you mock it.  

Actually when I went to the university of Florida (very secular school) Time after Time I was told by the History professors that the Bible was used for archeaology and Historical facts. They were by no means Christians. Once again pure hatred for Christians. And by the way, how did you know I go to Liberty University?

as for the masses that God pre-destined for Hell, I do not believe in predestination. God already knows who will be saved and who will be lost but He doesn't choose.

Love must of evolved from what ever was in our universe first. And the animals do not have the love of humans. So you believe that compassion for people comes from a bioelectric  response to stimuli.

as for you last part, no you do not see animals do these things. My point exactly. We are completely different from the animals.

 

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


Laker-taker
Laker-taker's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2006-04-04
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: ...I do

questions wrote:

...I do not believe in predestination.

Oh? Your follow up statement seems to indicate otherwise.

questions wrote:
God already knows who will be saved and who will be lost but He doesn't choose.

When you say that God already knows what the outcome will be, that is precisely predestination.

Let's say God knows that I will be lost. If I were to choose to become saved... well, that would contradict God's knowledge, right? But if God really does know that I will be lost, which is what you are asserting (hypothetically), then I have no choice. It's etched in stone; even if I go through the right motions, I'm sunk. In order to resolve the dilemma, we have to either admit that we don't have "free will" or admit that God is not omnicient. In asserting God's knowledge of the outcome, you are implying predestination.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: my all

questions wrote:

my all powerfull God gave man with one God like power. The power of choice. He did not make Adam and Eve sin they chose to sin.

But your jagoff of a god CREATED adam and eve already knowing that they would choose to sin and thus cause all of future humanity to suffer.  So once more, I repeat, you pass my message along to your sadistic creator. 

Quote:
As for the message I'm to send to God, I think I'll leave that to you.

He's your god, not mine.  I won't be speaking to him any more than I speak to The Great Kazoo. 

Quote:
God calls all to be saved but some refuse to except Him.

Why does god need to call, WHEN HE ALREADY KNOWS WHO WILL ACCEPT HIM AND WHO WONT?   

Quote:
I'm sure you have heard the gospel and you mock it.

Yep, and anyone not wearing blinders would do the same. 

Quote:
Actually when I went to the university of Florida (very secular school) Time after Time I was told by the History professors that the Bible was used for archeaology and Historical facts.

Do you even know what archaeology is? Of course the bible would be used in studying the people who adhered to it, or who compiled it. It wasnt used to prove something as fact any more than Egyptian tomb paintings were used to prove Osiris existed.

Quote:
They were by no means Christians. Once again pure hatred for Christians. And by the way, how did you know I go to Liberty University?

Quite frankly, anyone that believes in adam and eve shouldnt be allowed to attend any other university.

 

Quote:
as for the masses that God pre-destined for Hell, I do not believe in predestination. God already knows who will be saved and who will be lost but He doesn't choose.

Of course he chooses. If he's omniscient, then he knew from the minute he molded that stupid ball of earth who would be saved and who wouldnt.  This is an idiotic subject, and I cant believe Im wasting my time with it.  

Quote:
Love must of evolved from what ever was in our universe first. And the animals do not have the love of humans. So you believe that compassion for people comes from a bioelectric response to stimuli.

Yep. 

Quote:
as for you last part, no you do not see animals do these things. My point exactly. We are completely different from the animals.

Yes, in some cases, we're far worse.  You missed my point, and that doesnt shock me one bit.  Have fun at Falwell U, home of the #1 ranked debate team.

 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
questions

questions wrote:

Laker-taker wrote:
questions wrote:
I believe the world was created out of nothing, but not from nothing.


-- I'm puzzled by what you are trying to get across with this statement. "Out of" and "from" are two ways of saying the same thing: first there was nothing, then there was something. Ex Nihilo. If you're trying to equivocate either "out of" or "from" to mean "composed of," then obviously, something cannot be composed of nothing. "Something" and "nothing," in this context, are mutually exclusive.

questions wrote:
Science ... says that matter can not be created nor destroyed. But here we are. So at some time it must have been created.


Pay attention:

questions wrote:
Science ... says that matter can not be created ...


questions wrote:
So at some time it must have been created.


See the error?

 

Sorry for not being clear. What i mean is that there was nothing no earth, no air, no particles. But I believe there was God. He created this world out of nothing. It was created out of nothing from God.

The next thing is Science says matter cannot be created nor destroyed but at the same time i see CREATION, and you asked "see the error". Yes i see it I was wondering how the athiest explains it.

Complete failure to address what I laid out from a scientific or philosophical POV. Why DON'T I find it suprising you responded personally to everyone BUT me?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: my all powerfull God

Quote:
my all powerfull God gave man with one God like power. The power of choice.

OK, same strategy that remained unanswered with all theists. I give you a logical problem.

Premise: Man faced with choice A or choice B. There is no other possibility, choice A and B being exhaustive together. God knows man will make choice A.

Question: Can man make choice B?

Quote:
He did not make Adam and Eve sin they chose to sin.

...but from my knowledge, they didn't know that sinning was a bad thing, because they didn't have the notions of "good" and "bad".

Quote:
Thus they brought bad things into this world

That's so cool, but why am I held to suffer from Adam and Eve's mistake? What's MY fault that THEY sinned ?

Quote:
God calls all to be saved but some refuse to except Him.

I'm certain that an omnipotent God would find a better and more convinving "calling". I'm also sure that an all-loving God would have forgiven Adam and Eve, and so we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Quote:
Actually when I went to the university of Florida (very secular school) Time after Time I was told by the History professors that the Bible was used for archeaology and Historical facts.

We use Egyptian carcings, Roman odes for gods, Norse mythology and Greek ostrakons for quite the same purpose...

Quote:
Once again pure hatred for Christians.

Actually ignorance. On your side.

Quote:
as for the masses that God pre-destined for Hell, I do not believe in predestination.

And then why do you think there are masses pre-destined for Hell ?

Quote:
God already knows who will be saved and who will be lost

So if God knows that I'm lost, can I be anything than lost? To be omniscient means to have knowledge of everything, and that implies CORRECT knowledge of everything.

Quote:
but He doesn't choose.

Then, combined with what you said before, it would result that there's an instance superior to or independent of God that chooses. Thus God is not omnipotent.

Quote:
Love must of evolved from what ever was in our universe first.

And that would be ... ?

Quote:
And the animals do not have the love of humans.

And you are saying this because ... ?

Quote:
So you believe that compassion for people comes from a bioelectric  response to stimuli.

Pretty much like that. The process is more complicated, though, involving physics, biology and chemistry as well, plus a little algorithmics. Pardon if I forgot something.

 

Had to give a response myself.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Animals don't feel love?

Animals don't feel love? And your best example is that A lion doesn't care for a hurt gazelle?

Should I start lementing over my burger?

Should I hold a proper funeral for the potatoes that I shall consume?

What about love found from one animal to another of it's species?

Have you ever had a pet? I know my dog loves me, He gives me signs of effection most everyday! Cats on the other hand... bleh.

Maybe you should step away from the bible and pick up a biology book, or go to a zoo, maybe you'll learn that rabbits do not chew cud.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Predestination means that

Predestination means that God makes you do certain things. God knows what you will do but he does not make you do it, you choose. God knows who will be saved and who will not, but he does not choose some for heaven and others for hell. 2 Peter 3:9 says that God wishes all to come to repetance and all to be saved. But God gave us a god like feature. It was the ability to choose. Their is a difference between God's ominicients and Predestination. It is like a movie I have already seen. I know what is going to happen, but I didn't make it happen that way. Don't take my analogy too far, because God is apart of our lives I'm not saying he doesn't do anything. But God gives us free will. The reason for this is to give us the ability to love God. If God made us do right, then we wouldn't love Him we would only be doing what He made us do.

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1247
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
questions

questions wrote:
Predestination means that God makes you do certain things. God knows what you will do but he does not make you do it, you choose.

god (assuming it exists) made me the way i am.  Every choice which I make is because of the way I was made, which is how god chose to make me. 

 

questions wrote:
But God gave us a god like feature. It was the ability to choose.
  The ability to choose is a god-like feature...so god can choose between good and evil?  How do we know he has not chosen evil, and we are part of his evil plan?

questions wrote:
Their is a difference between God's ominicients and Predestination. It is like a movie I have already seen. I know what is going to happen, but I didn't make it happen that way.

Ah, but if you were the director of the movie (the same way god created us), you did make it happen that way.  

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Oh, man... I really don't

Oh, man... I really don't get it. Is understanding the impossibility of free will coexisting with coincidence a medical condition? I am starting to believe that I am somehow not within what people consider "normal", or "mentally healthy"...

Quote:
Predestination means that God makes you do certain things. God knows what you will do but he does not make you do it, you choose. God knows who will be saved and who will not, but he does not choose some for heaven and others for hell. 2 Peter 3:9 says that God wishes all to come to repetance and all to be saved. But God gave us a god like feature. It was the ability to choose. Their is a difference between God's ominicients and Predestination. I know what is going to happen, but I didn't make it happen that way.

Without taking your analogy too far... If you know what would happen in such a movie, could it happen another way the enxt time you see it?

questions - very simple logic problem for you:

 

Man is faced with choice A or B. God knows man will make choice A. Can man make choice B?

 

Quote:
If God made us do right, then we wouldn't love Him we would only be doing what He made us do.

That I would expect to hear from a kindergarden-level child. Not from what I presume to be a fully-developed human being.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
questions

questions wrote:
Predestination means that God makes you do certain things. God knows what you will do but he does not make you do it, you choose. God knows who will be saved and who will not, but he does not choose some for heaven and others for hell. 2 Peter 3:9 says that God wishes all to come to repetance and all to be saved. But God gave us a god like feature. It was the ability to choose. Their is a difference between God's ominicients and Predestination. It is like a movie I have already seen. I know what is going to happen, but I didn't make it happen that way. Don't take my analogy too far, because God is apart of our lives I'm not saying he doesn't do anything. But God gives us free will. The reason for this is to give us the ability to love God. If God made us do right, then we wouldn't love Him we would only be doing what He made us do.

What about god’s responsibility for creating the people he knew would do bad things? If I created something knowing in advance that it would harm people how would I not be responsible?

If god wants people to be happy and he doesn’t affect free will then why not just create the people he knew would do good things and not create the people he knew would do bad things? Then everybody would be happy and he wouldn’t be affecting free will.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: How was

questions wrote:

How was the world created. I have heard 2 basic arguments. Out of nothing came this dust or these particles? Or this dust or particles always existed. Was wondering what you would say was the creation story?

 My personal theory goes from the laws of thermodynamics. They state that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only transfered. They also state that something cannot come from nothing. Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed - it has ALWAYS been extant. And of course something cannot come from nothing - thus meaning SOMETHING has always been.

 Compare both these rules side by side and it becomes clear that energy had no predecessor and has always existed AND is the fundamental of the universe. IF there is a god - energy must preceed it in a sequential order of development.

 How did mass and time come about? Don't really have much of a clue. I personally think something along the lines of energy intersection - or energy charges rotating one another at a literally infinite speed is what mass (at a sub-atomic level) is. We would simply measure time from the appearance of the first atom. From this more atoms come together and the "Big Bang" theory would explain what would occur sequentially from this point.

 My theory is not necessarily backed up by science - but is rather my logical conclusion based on the various pieces of information i have accumulated.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
questions wrote: Then you

questions wrote:

Then you said there are no proofs in the Bible, at first I thought you were saying nothing in the Bible is true. If so that is a ridiculous statement. Historians use the Bible more than anyother text. They may not believe the miracles and God but they do agree with the battles and the historical stories. But I asume you are saying that the Bible lies about a God.

You could try to not lie - or at least know your asinine claim before you make it. "Historians" use the bible more than any other text? For what? toilet paper? Historians reference Egyptian and Roman records. The bible IS NOT historically accurate - and IS NOT used this way you claim. Events like creation, the flood of Noah, and the Exodus of the Hebrews NEVER occured. The remainder is still considered allegorical. 

Quote:
If you deny that a man named Jesus claimed to be God, and claimed to be born of a virgin who was actually crucified on a cross, once again you are rejecting the most basic proofs that history can provide. Out of pure hatred for Christianity.

... or I'm simply concluding based on REAL evidence. Sure a man at some point in history named "Jesus" claimed to be God - probably many. Claimed to be born of a virgin? As if that happens. Even so... this would make him no different than his predecessors. Crucified on a cross? as if this is unique? THERE IS NO PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE JESUS OF THE BIBLE. As far as recorded history is concerned - this man NEVER EXISTED. 

Quote:
And as you asking for God to reveal himself for 20 years of your life I don't what to say. I pray that all who seek him will find him. I will pray for you every day this week. Look for Him.

Why do I need to find god? And why is god lost? 

Quote:
I'll leave you with this. Many atheist say that Christians have the problem of evil, but atheist have the problem of love. Out of those dust particles that evolved into our universe today, you beleive love came into existance. What animal shows love the way people do. When does the lion see the gazelle in pain and go and try to comfort it. When does the tiger give all of his possesions to the animals that need them. Man is different. Man has morals. Morals can not come from nature. Man cares and has compasion, nature has instincts.

And you are doing nothing more than showing your ignorance of nature. Most animals are perfectly capacitated to "love" the fellow members of their species (and perhaps other species). Most mammals and most birds mourn the loss of their dead. When does a tiger share? when it wants to get laid - or when a child needs food.

Why would a lion comfort a gazelle? Gazelle are the lion's prey. Do you mourn the loss of a cow when you eat a hamburger? Do you get an insatiable urge to go to your nearest farm and hug all the animals when you eat meat?

Both man AND nature have compassion, love, and instincts. 


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
NarcolepticSun

NarcolepticSun wrote:
questions wrote:

Both man AND nature have compassion, love, and instincts.

 

 

You are correct to a point, I would argue that a humans compassion, love, and instincts are far greater than that of animals. But it all goes back to the original question. You believe this compassion, love and insticts evolved from this energy that always existed.

 

And my point was not to argue with anyone here, I would say everyone in this chatroom is far to hard headed and stubborn to change their minds in the first place, Christians and Atheist alike. I want to understand your argument.

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


questions
Theist
questions's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Without taking your analogy too far... If you know what would happen in such a movie, could it happen another way the enxt time you see it?

questions - very simple logic problem for you:

 

Man is faced with choice A or B. God knows man will make choice A. Can man make choice B?

He could have but he didn't. Presdestination says that God made me do it. I believe we chose to do it.

I watch a kid who is staring at a piece of candy he is not allowed to have. I know when no one is looking he is going to take that piece of candy. But I didn't make him take it.

 

Quote:
If God made us do right, then we wouldn't love Him we would only be doing what He made us do.

Quote:
That I would expect to hear from a kindergarden-level child. Not from what I presume to be a fully-developed human being.

Some truths don't take a genius to understand.

Mod: Two-Day Timeout for Lying 3/23/2007


Leuthesius
agnostic deistTheist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-03-08
User is offlineOffline
Uh... actually... something

Uh... actually... something DOES come from nothing..

 

http://www.jlab.org/news/archive/2003/nothing.html

 

Just to play devil's advocate.  

- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."