How the athiest thinks
Person A (we are figuratively speaking here cuz i know you will probably cry about something) gets a PhD in the field of scientific studies. Person B gets the SAME EXACT PhD, yet person B uses his education in the glory of God and finds ample evidence of creation. These two people go through the same schooling, get the same degree, yet work in different fields. Then some athiest comes along and automatically assumes Person B has a lesser education than person A.
The Athiest glorifys a man because he has a piece of paper framed on his wall. They criticize a christian for believing what they read in a book or heard from somebody. Yet the athiest does the same thing, they believe what they read in a book, or what somebody tells them, but because its written of told to them from a certain point of view they forget that they are just as religious and deem it "science". They don't think for a minute, "how accurate is this?, could Person A have fudged these results just so he could get the outcome he wanted?, could Person A have lied about his research?" Because you studied it in a book how do you know its true? Because your teacher told you how do you know its true?
"WELL PERSON A GOT HIS DOCTORATE IN "X STUDIES" SO IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE HE WROTE ABOUT IT"
Bias is not 100% eliminatable, to what extremes would a person go to obtain the result they wanted?
Lets take this example. John Doe is researching homosexuals, if they are born that way or influenced somehow. (which btw, regardless of popular OPINION nothing has been proven on that) Ok, so what is John Doe's background, is he gay? is he straight? is he for/against homosexuality regardless of his own sexuality? does he have homosexual children? what kind of result is he initially looking for?
these are the kind of questions one should really ask themselves before taking anthing anybody says about anything into consideration.
and before you go and whine to me, yes there are Christians that are guilty of the same, because they go against what the Bible says and try to please man instead of God.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
- Login to post comments
Thus your empty claim can be dismissed out of hand. Your honesty about anything you've said in this forum is highly dubious and you are very skilled in the art of avoiding questions.
Red Herring
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Certainly the terrorists associated with 9/11 would disagree with you. Thus reverting us to plurality. There's no objective way (yet) to determine why Christianity is "more right" than Islam, so from the perspective of a non-believer in any of these two religions, they are equally merituous.
How about reading the whole Bible figuratively? Why read only some of the books figuratively and others literally?
And if you do read the whole Bible figuratively, that leaves the same number of possible interpretations as people are out there.
We're both discussing this as if it didn't happen... Well, it did happen... and the result was many little sub-religions whose only connection point is believing in approximately the same god. The path of salvation (if the case), the moral code, etc., in short, all that's actually important out of that book, is a simple nebula, with absolutely no way of determining which is right and which is wrong. And due to their mutual exclusiveness, they can't all be right.
So again this leads us straight back to plurality. Neither of us has achieved anything through this.
Is that so? Well then, if something happens against God's will, then he is not omnipotent. If something happens outside God's knowledge, he is not omniscient. If somethingn happens outside of God's presence, he is not omnipresent.
Care to review that one, please?
I didn't limit God, I just stated an obvious fact. Go to a tribe council in Africa and ask them what they think about the sacrifice of Jesus. Chances for you being asked "Who's Jesus?" are almost 100%
Actually, since I did give you that situation, obviously I can imagine it happening. But does that happen? Umm... nope.
The righteousness of a messenger doesn't affect the truth (or lack of) of the message. For all we know, even Satan could be the creator of the Universe.
Sure. That's why some people are Buddhists. AGAIN I must point out that Christianity shouldn't bring the "test of time" argument, since Christianity fails it miserably compared to other religions.
So has been Muhammad, Buddha, Confucius, Dyonissos, etc. Which YET AGAIN reverts us straight back to plurality.
The right side of the brain, if I'm not mistaken, is supposed to reveal the inner self of one. Unfortunately, what it miserably fails to do is to reflect reality in an objective way. No matter how much yo loathe the 9/11 things, and no matter how undesirable or nauseous you think those events are, that doesn't make them less real. And on the same lines, no matter how much you'd wish we all lived in an utopia, "heaven on earth", that doesn't make it more real.
I spot a projection here. I never said anything like that, and certainly I don't dismiss him because of what he said. Muhammad also said some things that I don't agree with, but I'm not disputing that he was a real person once.
You, however, did indirectly imply that you dismiss Muhammad because some of his sayings make less sense to you than Jesus'. So do not accuse me of something YOU did.
I have no way of knowing for sure, but yes, that's pretty much the point. Note that the Bible you currently have has not always been like that. This shape of the Bible has only been on after the second council of Niceea (if I'm not mistaken - anyone who knows the exact moment please correct me if wrong). Choosing which books go in and which go out has, historically speaking, been a matter of human choice.
You should read more. That's not an excuse.
Rook Hawkins can tell you better, I'm really weak at remembering exact numbers.
Apparently he DIDN'T...
But we DO notice inconsistencies. Skeptics' Annotated Bible, The Atheism Pages at Ebon Musings, The Jesus Puzzle... perhaps you should read these. I'd simply spend several months explaining what they have already explained, and I'm really not going to do that.
Well, considering Pliny, Josephus, Ovidivs, Heraclitus and many others (some that, as you probably noticed, weren't historians at all), we can pretty much say that they did have the ability to record history. Which is pretty much why some dispute the life of Jesus.
I never said that. What I did say, though, is that perhaps they might have had an interest in recording it in a specific way.
Do take into consideration that we have no way of knowing that the gospels weren't in fact simple fairy-tales that were meant to have a moralizing effect on young, just as we have such fairy-tales today.
Would you give historical accuracy to the Divine Comedy? Or perhaps to Shakespeare's writings? No you wouldn't, would you?
The difference is that these writings do NOT CLAIM to be the only objective truth that we must follow. Which cannot be said about the Bible.
I never said the Bible was modified. True, perhaps some errors did occur, because of translation, but I have no reason to believe it was modified in any other way much. Still, that doesn't make it right, and that doesn't change the fact that Christianity simply didn't go global instantly.
That has to be the dumbest question you could have asked. Isn't it OBVIOUS ? Do you have the guarantee that you'll go to Heaven? Are you 100% sure? What if this whole thing is right and we end up both in hell, saying to each other "See? I told you!"
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
So you are saying some moral truths are relative, some are not. How is one to know the difference? Do we all get to decide for ourselves? In that case, for some people, maybe it is okay to abuse little kids.
Typical theistic nonsense in support of the notion that a divine lawmaker is necessary because humans are so stupid/depraved they cannot make moral law for themselves. Wake up! We are not children. It has been observed that men are completely capable of drawing up ethical moral codes themselves. In fact, it has always been men of reason that were better at ethical humanism than men of faith. From the ancient greeks to the founding fathers.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
In order to accept all your conclusions, I have to accept that there is not God. Explain to me how that is different, please.
Because there is no good reason to believe in God. No reason to believe that Jesus is divine any more than Zeus sends thunderbolts from the sky and Thor with is hammer lords over the clouds.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
To be blunt, here is what is becoming apparent to me. Everything you accuse me of, you are guilty of yourself. You have a god, his name is Logic. You hinge your life on Logic, you put your faith in it, as if it will NEVER fail you. How are you different than me in that respect? You have come to atheism because it makes you feel good. Jesus' message made you feel bad, the whole God idea makes you feel bad, so you have rejected it in favor of something that feels more comfortable to you. You trust texts to provide you with knowledge. You just chose different texts than I choose. You're actions, my actions reflect our base human nature, which, try as we might, we CANNOT escape. You cannot reason yourself out of that.
Ah, I spot the logical fallacy here. You are using a chain of logic reasoning to suggest that relying mostly on chains of logical reasoning is bad. The fact is, this cognitive function is completely ingrained in the human mind. And I have used it to dismiss the notion of God. By insisting "we are blind" you are merely projecting theistic attributes onto us. Tell me, in a matter as important as whether or not there is a God, surely logic would triumph? You cannot possibly insist that this entity can only be understood by the right-brain. That's ridiculous.
I am not saying analyzing is bad, I'm saying you all are favoring it over all other forms of thought, and thus you are missing out on some profound, universal truths. However, you are comfortable with your logic, so, just as you would tell me to step out of my comfort zone, I also challenge you to step out of yours.
Nothing wrong with not using logic sometimes. When I look at a painting or at a beautiful view, you think I rationalize it? No. But there is a difference between "alogical" meaning not using logic, and illogical, meaning makes no logical sense. God falls into the second category.
There are no universal truths. That is the only universal truth (a logical fallacy depending on how one construes it).
If I was afraid of, and did not enjoy using logic, why would I spend 40 hours a week solving logic puzzles? Your assumption about me is incorrect. I like analyzing, I like logic, I also like creativity, imagination, speculation, thinking outside the box...
As do I. Now, why is it that I see no God, and you do? If you would clearly explain why you believe in God instead of abstract ramblings, we would take you more seriously.
I am going to flip this around and say I am speaking over your head regarding spiritual matters. You have no concept of God, the creator, you do not understand him or know him at all, and you think this makes you smarter than me.
No. We have no concept of God because it is an illogical concept with no meaning, and you have presented us with no good reason to believe in this entity.
No, it does not. How do you know, if you have sheltered yourself from all religion, never go to church, how can you judge what goes on there? You just do not like the conclusions that the our critical thinking has led us to.
You have not shown us that you have gone through a critical thinking process to conclude there is a God. All you have done is said that you have done it. Justify it.
My frustration has shown thru, as it is showing thru now, because I have beautiful truths to offer you and you turn away.
Why shouldn't we? There is no good reason to believe you are offering us truth.
I find that deeply troubling, frustrating, and sad. I find it troubling that I can not break thru to you. I have tried different methods, even imploying sarcasm, because you all seem to appreciate that type of humor, but to no avail.
You haven't tried anything. All you have done is rambled on about alogical entites and special pleading about Christianity.
I'm sure you know Jesus predicted that some would refuse to hear his message, that their hearts would be hardened against it. These words of his have been proven true time and time again to me on this website.
Hearts hardened against it? What about brains immune to it?
I see love in JLY's opening post and genuine care for all you. Jesus' message is so offensive to you that you do what you are accusing me of doing in regards to your message...you get angry.
The OP was an ignorant bigoted idiot who knew nothing of atheism (calling it satanic), knew nothing of science, or anything else for that matter. We put him in his place.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Actually, around here it's a meritocracy. The strength of your arguments determines how much people will treat them.
Lots of us, including myself, have college degrees, but that isn't something to boast about out of context.
I'm sorry, but you have not come to any such conclusion. You have made a rigid, unquestionable decision. In the time you have been posting here, I have seen you disavow logic, engage in blatant fallacies, ignore valid points, and generalize and misscharacterize atheists as a group. The only arguments you have really offered are subjective experiences. When challenged to evaluate other faiths, even those that are very similar to your own, first you reject them without even a moment's hesitation, then you evaluate them only in the context of Christian dogma. You never give even a moment's serious objective consideration to them. All that you have is faith, so don't pretend to have come to some intellectual conclusion.
I would argue that you can't know much of anything on logic alone. You need observation to have any knowledge to apply logic to. However, that does not excuse committing blatant logical fallacies. A conclusion reached by logical fallacies is specious, whether that conclusion is ultimately true or false.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Proof of an inability to think...
The implication is that it's better to believe pleasant lies than hard truths if it makes you less likely to kill yourself. All that comment reveals is a disdain for truth.
Precisely.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Logic has a gender?
Oh, BTW thanks for sticking words in peoples mouths again.
And if logic was our god, then we wouldn't be atheists.
Hey-zues christine! You are nuts, aren't you?
What is worthy of worship is relative.
But then again, I see that you live in a black/white world. of 1's and 0's.
Realize the world is a big picture, with many shades.
You just love to sell yourself bullshit, don't you?
If there is a problem in his logic, point it out.
If all you can do is assert that he uses 'logic to spin himself into a complex web of nothingness" then concede that you actually don't have a point at all, and that, rather, you're just trying to convince yourself that you can ignore logic if you don't like the conclusions.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Care to disprove?
Before you get to that, I have questions for you.
Is Jesus worthy of worship?
Is god?
Muhammed?
Besides the afformentioned three, is there anyone else, worth worshipping?
Also I am curious as to how you concluded, that the use of logic spinned a web of nothing? (Or something like that)
Up/down, not left/right
Well, thanks anyway, but the idea of mistakes is really only possible in an absolute moral system. Relative morals are 'corrected', in some sense, for pragmatic reasons.
And my point is that when you choose "Jesus's morals", as you perceive them, all you're really doing is choosing the morals codified in the fourth century without the benefit of pragmatic correction, and tainted by a variety of self-serving agendas of people both alive and long-dead.
He proved it? With what for proof? How do you prove morals?
I suppose if you consider oppression of homosexuals and advocating ignorance moral, then maybe.
I am saying that a moral system which does not protect innocent children from being exploited is so broken that it will fail. When I say that morals are relative, I do not mean that they are entirely arbitrary. They are derived from the need to cooperate socially.
All that I ask is that the evaluation be objective. In other words, do not assume that your faith is true in deciding on the truth of the other. This is synonymous with 'entertaining doubt'. You claim that you have studied other religions and concluded that Christianity is the best one. But the only reasons you have given are based on the assumption that Christianity is true.
I don't know what movies you are talking about, do you have a title or a link?
The fact is, I have known 6 ex-Mormons, and I have a lot of information about them from reliable sources. I know about special underware (yes, really), the temple handshakes, the frequent revision of their holy texts, etc. The tacts used by the missionaries. I'm not sure what I could learn from the movies that I do not already know. However, this is entirely irrelevent to your reasons for rejecting this religion.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
sugarfree: "Well, if that were in fact true, I would still be a blessed person. Mother Theresa had a lot of faith, was a selfless person...and believed in Jesus too. If she was alive and came here, would you cut her down as you have cut me down? Would you tell her to give up her faith because she is delusional, or would you tell her to keep doing her good work?"
Oh, the old "Only Christians can perform acts that benefit mankind"?
The only discussion many of us would have with Mother Teresa would hinge on this question - Do you really need a God belief to be a good person and do charitable acts?
I don't believe that's true. Based on what I've seen, the Christians in my life use Christ as a blanket to cover their reprehensible actions. It's the "I can do what I want because I've been covered by the Blood of Jesus and I'm under grace and not under the law"
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'd call her a sadistic bitch.
Lets see your logic.
Show me your logical arguments. So far you've made nothing but naked claims. You have not shown any evidence to support any of your claims.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Actually, I requested the statistics for this very early on in this thread and was completely ignored. Why do you honestly think that the suicide rate is higher among atheists? You clearly feek very strongly about this.
You also made a statement about atheist children feeling hopeless or worthless (I don't recall which) that was completely ridiculous as well. Where is your proof? I highly doubt you could provide any.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
If you want to point out a problem in his logic, first QUOTE his actual argument.
Then, show me where there is a problem.
Then present me with the logical falalcy.
This is just more nonsense you sell to yourself. You do a good job of deluding yourself, no one else here is buying it.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
"Logic is our idol"
In other words, we insist on being logical.
He, however, prefers to ignore logic when a logical conclusion doesn't go his way...
Which is why he must disparage logic.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Such cynicism.
2+2=4
Refute that.
Refute the axiom of existence.
Refute the axiom of identity.
Refute the axiom of consciousness.
It's not possible to refute many arguments. If a deductive argument is valid, and the premises true, you have no choice but to accept the conclusion.
For inductive arguments, it's always possible to doubt their conclusions, but doubt in of itself is not a grounds for rejecting the conclusion.
It is true that people can naysay an argument, they can reject it, irrationally, they can drag their heels and go into full denial.... but that has nothing to do with actually refuting an argument....
In other words, we have arguments that refute your wishful thinking, and you don't like that.
I don't think many atheists believe in ex nihilo creation. If you'd like to point out someone here who does, by all means, do so. If you can't, then you'll have to withdraw your claim.
The reality is that it's usually the theist who believes in ex nihilo creation. Atheists don't believe in creation at all, and only a small subset believe in a universe that came from zero dimensions.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I will not waste time giving you my arguments because you do not believe in God, so we will not agree on anything anyway. So, here was my path.
Prerequisite: There is a God.
Based on prerequisite: Start learning about more about God.
Observe. Observe the world. Observe people. Observe yourself.
Learn. Learn about people. Learn about mythology. Learn about religion. Learn about specific religions.
Sit down. Collect thoughts. Meditate on knowledge. Compare.
Make an informed decision. Take a step of faith.
That is an outline of the path I took. Of course, it was not that ordered, but all the steps were there. If you choose to take the path, you will be able to fill in the blanks. To understand where I am coming from you would have to take the journey yourself and make your own discoveries...because no matter what I say, you will not believe me unless you experience it yourself. As I said before, I bet you will be pleasantly surprised with what you find and eternally greatful.
The point isn't that we'd disagree, it's that we'd have a good reason to reject your argument, based on a basic error in logic.
And you know that is precisely what will happen if you post any argument.
Hence, your pathetic dodge.
This probably IS your argument: you just beg the question of 'god's' existence, leaving behind the logical problems altogether....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I, and a majority of this board has never made such a claim, in factwe spend a whole lot of time telling people like you that we don't make such a claim OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER!
Truth isn't relative, how we interpret it is.
At least, this is what I believe. Everyone else, you should ask them.
How does one refute everything? Wait, are you saying there is no actual truth?
Cute. Maybe you can tell us what god made the universe from?
Negative alert. Negative. Anyone. Anyone? Hello? This is a negative comment right? Or am I just delusional?
Wow, since my last posts a few hours ago, this thread has literally burst open.
"Sugarfree, why so mad at atheist debaters? Have you ever been an atheist, and now you refuse to accept it as the only logical fact simply because something horrible happened in your life?" (yes, for those who didn't get it, it's an inverse of the "atheists are mad at god" argument)
Sugarfree, as much as I'd like to have an impersonal chat, I am forced to adhere to some of my fellow atheist posters' conclusion: that the only arguments you have currently brought forward match the "it makes sense to me" pattern.
I would be curious on how you respond to my last two posts, I've shown some things there out of your religion that really shouldn't make sense even to you. I'll go on with this line and bring forward to you some other things that I'm really curious how they "make sense" to you:
- is there predestination? if yes, then free will goes bye-bye, if not, then prophecies go bye-bye; the answer should be a simple "yes" or "no"
- are there a) free will and b) sin in Heaven? If there are both, then Heaven cannot be much different from what Earth is now; perhaps immortality granted, but not much else. If there is sin, but not free will, my apologies, but that sounds more like Hell to me. If there are none, that looks like we're going to be reincarnated in machines after next birth (metaphorically). If there is free will, but not sin, this means that there exists a state of combination between existence of free will and non-existence of sin, meaning that the argument most theists bring forth (that sin is a result of free will) is false. I believe to have exhausted all possibilities, await your answer
- what color were Adam and Eve's eyes? (and in case you haven't realized, I'm asking because from that color(s), the whole diversity we now see must have originated); principially answering this will also answer others (like what color was their hair or skin, did they have that typical Asian skin fold at the eyelid or not, etc.), and it should be obvious that a wrong answer would lead to bizzarre conclusions
- will merituous people that have never heard of Jesus in their entire lives get to heaven or hell? if hell, then divine justice goes bye-bye, if heaven, than it's actually people preaching the message of Jesus that are condemning us all to hell
- is hell permanent or temporary? if permanent, the punishment greatly outweighs the crime, and so long divine justice, if temporary, then why should we worry?
More to come in a few short minutes.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I'm wondering if sugerfree agrees on anything with any theist?
So? What's your point? If someone is a sadistic bitch, then perhaps the term is accurate.
I'd say self delusional.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Basic big bang idea, I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking at different hypothesis (SP?). So it's really not my area.
Why is god the prerequisite? Who says? How do we know he's the prerequisite? The whole reason you found god at the end of your path is because you based your entire path on him.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Why does it even have to be created in the first place? There are several cosmological accounts from real cosomlogists that do not invoke anything at all like creation, such as Brane Theory or Hawking's finite but boundless model.
Big bang theory isn't a creation account, by the way:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I think it was todangst who stated a thread on this, how come that almost all theists on here claims to have critically analyzed all other religions including their own? Well, I supposed that would be true, if by critical analysis you mean reading a few pages of the other holy text, realizing that it doesn't agree with your holy text and throw out the other one based on dogmatic belief that your holy text is the true one.
Sugarfree: Don't attempt to defend Mother Theresa. I think you will find the that if one does not hold the same beliefs as Mother Theresa (concerning the purpose of pain and suffering) one might come to very difference conclusions as to her character.
Granted. You may be able to defend her.. but really, but, I would contend that there might not be much fruit born of a such an argument.
'Good' people exists even as 'Bad' people exists.
SIDENOTE: Careful. In the general sense. Take care.
Sincerely,
Fellow, unmarked, Theist.
Excuse me, but can you tell me how this responds to my point? You asserted that probably every argument could be refuted. I am now challenging that claim. Show me how you could probably refute every argument.
I do. The problem is that you don't have a clue as to what science actually says. You don't really know what you're talking about here.
Big bang theory is NOT a creation account.
"A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory, partly described in the last two chapters, that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all."
- Brian Greene "The Fabric Of The Cosmos."
Big bang theory only tells us about our universe from 'planck time'. Big bang theory can tell us nothing about the universe prior to this time. (this is what grand unified theories seek to accomplish)
"Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period (and nothing can be known from this period from the perspective of big bang theory).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html
There are many theories that deal with this question. Let's review:
Common misconception: Either the universe was created, or it has always existed.
False dichotomy. There is no reason to hold that there MUST have been a creation point.
A singularity ("something timeless" prior to planck time) does not necessarily speak to ex nihilo creation - and again, big bang theory on its own, at the present, cannot tell us anything about the 'origin' of the singularity or if it has an origin at all.
I think people naturally hold that if the universe 'began' in a singularity, then it follows that it was 'created' or that it was 'caused'. But I think that cosmologists hold that it is an error to conflate the idea of a singularity with all existence being created ex nihlo.
According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:
* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.
* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.
* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html
One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point" http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html
"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."
In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.
Another third scenario option: Brane Theory
The Myth of the Beginning of Time String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state By Gabriele Veneziano
More on the theory:
'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory "
The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time." This collision would provide the original energy. Brane theory holds that there would be no beginning or end to existence.
Common misconception: Ex Nihilo arguments (something out of nothing) are arguments for a magical creation of the universe that violate all the laws of physics.
Theistic ex nihilo arguments are in fact irrational, magical explanations that violate physics.
However, interestingly, there are ex nihilo cosmological arguments that do NOT violate physics.
But where would the matter come from?
"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631
Ok then, where does the energy come from?
As for the source of the original energy? There are several theories:
a) Edward Tryon has put forth the idea of a vacuum fluctation, which is NOT a violation of physical law, as the original source. Alan Guth's Inflationary Model explains the rapid expansion of this energy. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Tryon makes the point that the total sum of positive and negative energy in the universe may well be ZERO, indicating again, that no physical laws are violated by the big bang event. As Tryon writes: "Im my model, I assume that our present universe did appear out of nowhere 10 to the 10th power years ago. Contrary to the popular belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Note: this version is akin to ex nihlio creation, except that it does NOT violate any laws of physics and does not require a 'miracle'.
b) Alex Vilenkin proposed, in contrast to the Hartle-Hawkings boundless model, an initial state of no dimensional nothingness that is overcome by vacuum tunneling to a dimensional state. As per his model, 'eternal nothingness' is an absolute impossibility.
See my audio file on this: http://www.candleinthedark.com/exnihilo.mp3
c) See above comments on Brane theory. 'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory "
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
It's not morally OK, but it's hardly the end of the world.
Look, you know very littlet about intersubjective/relativistic accounts of morality, so please stop embarrassing yourself here.
If you ever bring context into account for your own actions, you are invoking relativism yourself.... do you realize that?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Its one of the common lies theists tell themselves - that they somehow entered into religion objectively, critically, when in reality, they were inculcated into their religion as infants.
You see this self delusion repeated ad nauseum on the internet....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'