Atheists and God

[gerobbins]

I only read the first paragraph and can tell you already the article is crap.

Only a Christian could get that much wrong in two little sentences.

In your opinion. You see things only in black and white. I can say the same thing about your comment. Crap>>>

 

[gerobbins]

No one ever said your question had merit in the first place.

Edit: Also you are still failing the possibility vs probability thing.

Question has merit, but everyone is just to scared to answer it.

 

[gerobbins]

You tell me I'm ignoring the question while you fail to respond to all but one sentence of my post. That's hypocrisy for you.


I already answered that question in the post. Want me to post it again, since you're apparently unable to read all but the last sentence of my post? Well, here it is:


Of course it could have. But then the Universe could also have been created last weekened by a giant pink elephant named Gerald, and all of our memories before then were just implanted into our heads by his magical golden trunk.

Any number of infinite possibilities could have been responsible for the creation or formation of the Universe as we know it. The real question is: which one is actually correct? So far, God has not been necessary on any level to explain anything about the observable Universe and it's origin, so why should anyone conclude God's existence or hand in said creation on any basis other than pure faith or delusion?


And do you mean to tell me that if someone had answered "yes" to your question, you wouldn't of immediately gone "well that intelligent agency is God!"?

Ok, your sarcasm is immature, I don't blame you for that though, its a defensive reaction that most have when someone opposes their point of view and most likely your age as well.

How do you know that a supreme being is not nessacary for the origin of the universe. Were any of us there at the beginning? No we were not. However, from my point of view it had to have been created. Something just does not come from nothing. Your problem is, you see things as black and white with nothing in between.

I kinda feel sorry for ya. You seem to have a lot of hate in you.

 

[McBell]

Something just does not come from nothing.

Where did god come from?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, your sarcasm is immature, I don't blame you for that though, its a defensive reaction that most have when someone opposes their point of view and most likely your age as well.

No, the reason I'm being sarcastic is that I wrote out a whole post and you only responded to a single sentence. If you're going to be immature and not respond to the answers given to you, why should I show you any such respect in kind?

How do you know that a supreme being is not nessacary for the origin of the universe. Were any of us there at the beginning? No we were not. However, from my point of view it had to have been created. Something just does not come from nothing. Your problem is, you see things as black and white with nothing in between.

No, that's what you're doing. You're saying "something has to be created", I'm saying "no it doesn't, it could form from for almost any number of reasons". And how do I know a supreme being is not necessary for the origin of the Universe? Because we already have a viable scientific explanation for the origin of the known Universe, and on no level does it include a supreme being. Ergo, a supreme being is not required.

I kinda feel sorry for ya. You seem to have a lot of hate in you.

No, just a lot of frustration at theists like you who keep repeating the same tired arguments ad nauseum while continually being unable to respond to their rebuttals.

 

[gerobbins]

No, the reason I'm being sarcastic is that I wrote out a whole post and you only responded to a single sentence. If you're going to be immature and not respond to the answers given to you, why should I show you any such respect in kind?


No, that's what you're doing. You're saying "something has to be created", I'm saying "no it doesn't, it could form from for almost any number of reasons". And how do I know a supreme being is not necessary for the origin of the Universe? Because we already have a beginning, and on no level does it include a supreme being. Ergo, a supreme being is not required.


No, just a lot of frustration at theists like you who keep repeating the same tired arguments ad nauseum while continually being unable to respond to their rebuttals.

And you don't keep repeating? And please give me the viable scientific explanation.
I will read it. However, its still just theory.
As being unable to respond to rebuttals?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And you don't keep repeating? And please give me the viable scientific explanation.
I will read it. However, its still just theory.
As being unable to respond to rebuttals?

The big bang theory.

Also, is gravity "just a theory" too?

 

[tumbleweed41]

However, its still just theory.

OK. Now I may be wasting my time here. And I am hoping this is not an indication that science education in Canada is as bad as in America.
But your "just a theory" shows some ignorance on just what a Scientific Theory is.


Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.



A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Useful Prediction: If I leave broth open to the air, it will spoil. If I want to keep it from spoiling, I will keep it covered.
Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.
Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.



Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method

 

[Magic Man]

No the problem is, is that you don't get it. Not at all.

Sorry, but you might want to open your eyes. If you really think you're the one who gets it and I don't, your problems run pretty deep.

Sorry, but the puddle analogy is a dumb analogy. I have made many a hole for puddles haven't you?

And again, you show that you don't get it. You should really attempt to understand it before calling it dumb. The point is that puddles form in holes that were not intelligently designed for them all the time. Yet, the puddle itself would look around and say "Wow, this hole fits me perfectly. It must have been designed just for me", when in reality, the puddle fits the hole perfectly, not the other way around.

The point of the analogy is to show that the idea that this world fits us so perfectly it must have been designed for us doesn't work. And it does a very good job of it, if you understand it.

 

[Magic Man]

Again you don't get the point. Explain to me how our planet with all its complexities ( the moon, the axis, the distance from the sun etc...) could have just happened?

What do you mean? You need to explain why it couldn't have happened without an intelligent creator? You have yet to do so. There's no reason all of those elements couldn't come together on their own without an intelligence behind it.

If that is the case then the odds of other planets having the same condtions for life are astronomical. Things just don't happen. Open your mind.

My mind is wide open, which is why I am the one here accepting things that are blatantly obvious. Why would the odds for other planets having similar conditions be astronomical just because it happened here with Earth? Yes, things just happen. The rain can form a rock into what looks to us like a chair. Clouds can be shaped like something that looks to us like a lion. Whether or not you want to accept it, things don't need an intelligent designer to be the way they are. Open your mind.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, since you know that question is hard or impossible to answer, I am going back to my first question. Which you did not answer. And I am waiting for an answer...

So, let me get this straight. You can't answer the question "How did God come to exist with all his complexities?", but you can answer the question "How did the universe come to exist with all its complexities?"? How can you answer one but not the other? You keep saying that everything (which would include your god) needs to have been created. If that's true, then your god was created, and whatever created your god was created, and so on. You have yet to actually address this fault in your logic.

Is your sarcasm a matter of arrogance or ignorance or are you just purposely obtuse?

I'm sorry, I thought it was you who was going around calling people fools and calling analogies dumb because you didn't understand them.

 

[McBell]

So, let me get this straight. You can't answer the question "How did God come to exist with all his complexities?", but you can answer the question "How did the universe come to exist with all its complexities?"? How can you answer one but not the other? You keep saying that everything (which would include your god) needs to have been created. If that's true, then your god was created, and whatever created your god was created, and so on. You have yet to actually address this fault in your logic.

He seems to be of the mind "You can't see me cause I got my eyes closed."

 

[Magic Man]

You are avoiding the question. And I said in my statement about stonehenge was a ridiculous one. However, we were not around to witness it being built. So how can we say with any certainty that is was man made? How do we know that it was not built by something else? We can only assume it was built by man and that is our arrogance coming into play there.

Wait, now it's arrogant to claim that something was man-made? That's exactly what you're doing. You don't have all the evidence, and you're claiming that the universe must be intelligently designed. In essense, you're saying your own claim is arrogant.

Aside from that, we can not just assume that the universe was not created by a supernatural being.

Yes, we can. We don't have any real reason to believe it was created by a god, and we know that it's possible for it to exist without having been created by a god. Just like there's no evidence that Santa exists, and we know the world could work as it is without his existence, so it's OK to assume he's just a story.

So I ask again, taking the biblical God out of the equation can you say with any degree of certianty that the universe was not created by a being on a higher evolutionary scale then us?

Yes, I can.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually, they're both excellent analogies. The problem is that you don't like it.

Actually, those were all quotes from gerobbins in response to his/her question about why people are being sarcastic with him/her. Gerobbins is the one who doesn't get the analogies and doesn't like them.

 

[McBell]

You are avoiding the question.

Are you so desperate for the answer you want that you are going to continually rephrase the question until you get the answer you want?

And I said in my statement about stonehenge was a ridiculous one. However, we were not around to witness it being built. So how can we say with any certainty that is was man made? How do we know that it was not built by something else? We can only assume it was built by man and that is our arrogance coming into play there.

So in order to be certain of anything, we have to had witnessed it?
So how is it that you are able to be so certain that god exists?
were you there when he was created?

Aside from that, we can not just assume that the universe was not created by a supernatural being.

BUt it is just fine to assume that it was?
Your blatant hypocrisy is most interesting.

So I ask again, taking the biblical God out of the equation can you say with any degree of certianty that the universe was not created by a being on a higher evolutionary scale then us?

Here you go again merely rephrasing the question in hopes of getting the answer you want.

 

[Smoke]

Actually, those were all quotes from gerobbins in response to his/her question about why people are being sarcastic with him/her. Gerobbins is the one who doesn't get the analogies and doesn't like them.

Sorry; I was addressing gerobbins, but I didn't make that clear.

 

[gerobbins]

Wait, now it's arrogant to claim that something was man-made? That's exactly what you're doing. You don't have all the evidence, and you're claiming that the universe must be intelligently designed. In essense, you're saying your own claim is arrogant.



Yes, we can. We don't have any real reason to believe it was created by a god, and we know that it's possible for it to exist without having been created by a god. Just like there's no evidence that Santa exists, and we know the world could work as it is without his existence, so it's OK to assume he's just a story.



Yes, I can.

Ok, explain..

 

[gerobbins]

Actually, those were all quotes from gerobbins in response to his/her question about why people are being sarcastic with him/her. Gerobbins is the one who doesn't get the analogies and doesn't like them.

Oh I get them alright.

As for the sarcasm, I just find it comical when they say I avoid the question and in turn they are doing the same. Then the respond with sarcasm.

 

[Wotan]

How about the universe was not created at all It just IS and always has been. Kinda like your god thingy.

 

[gerobbins]

Ok again, and someone with an intelligent response please:

Prove to me that the universe just happened. Show me, concrete evidence. Do that and maybe I will keep my mind open about it.

Its seems any of you can't prove it just became and more then I can prove it was created.

So show me. (quick question, why are any of you so threatened as the possiblity of a creator?)