Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the world come from?

[Debater Slayer]

What evidence do you have to support your statement that everything happens for a reason?

How can you logically rule out coincidence?

I didn't. I said "Coincidence can only go so far"; as in it has a limit, not everything has to be coincidental.

So it appears, but why must it be a god? And as has been asked, whence god?

And why not? What reason is there not to believe that God created the universe? And as I have already answered: We cannot apply natural, universal laws of this world to God because we're basically inside a bubble. If you're inside a bottle you wouldn't be able to know much if at all about what's outside it.

 

[Skwim]

I didn't. I said "Coincidence can only go so far";as in it has a limit, not everything can be coincidental.
And why not?

Why not a huge, impersonal universe making machine?

What reason is there not to believe that God created the universe?

Don't know what particular characteristics, if any, you ascribe to your god, but so far those putting up their god for leader of the universe have yet to provide proof or even good reason for believing in it. If you want to believe your god "did it," fine; however, you'll have to come up with more fire power if you want to sway the non-believers around here.

And as I have already answered: We cannot apply natural, universal laws of this world to God because we're basically inside a bubble. If you're inside a bottle you wouldn't be able to know much if at all about what's outside it.

Same with elves, faeries, and goblins, and I'm not being facetious.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Why not a huge, impersonal universe making machine?

Don't know what particular characteristics, if any, you ascribe to your god, but so far those putting up their god for leader of the universe have yet to provide proof or even good reason for believing in it. If you want to believe your god "did it," fine; however, you'll have to come up with more fire power if you want to sway the non-believers around here.

Same with elves, faeries, and goblins, and I'm not being facetious.

But the existence of God is believable since the creation of the universe is attributed to him. What purpose does the existence of elves, fairies and goblins serve? Nothing, so why believe that they exist in any shape or form?

If you want to believe your god "did it," fine; however, you'll have to come up with more fire power if you want to sway the non-believers around here.

Like?

 

[darkendless]

I didn't. I said "Coincidence can only go so far"; as in it has a limit, not everything has to be coincidental.

And this point is based on what exactly?

And why not? What reason is there not to believe that God created the universe? And as I have already answered: We cannot apply natural, universal laws of this world to God because we're basically inside a bubble. If you're inside a bottle you wouldn't be able to know much if at all about what's outside it.

What you are doing is defying logic in order to fabricate a diety. Stick within testable boundaries and you will command more realistic answers instead of a heap of facepalms.

The reason not to believe in God is that there is no testable evidence to support his existance. If you believe in a God you are going beyond the bounds of logic.

 

[darkendless]

But the existence of God is believable since the creation of the universe is attributed to him. What purpose does the existence of elves, fairies and goblins serve? Nothing, so why believe that they exist in any shape or form?

Only if you want it to. Hell Dragons are believable because of medieval stories. What purpose does God serve, as far as I can see not much.

The problem with your article is you assume purpose. Thats your biggest mistake.

Like?

Something a strong atheist couldn't deny. The bible is not strong evidence and neither i weight of numbers.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And this point is based on what exactly?




What you are doing is defying logic in order to fabricate a diety. Stick within testable boundaries and you will command more realistic answers instead of a heap of facepalms.

The reason not to believe in God is that there is no testable evidence to support his existance. If you believe in a God you are going beyond the bounds of logic.

Okay. I'm not trying to promote any specific religion here but what about the scientific references that has been discovered in religious books such as the Qur'an? And these have been discovered by non-Muslim scientists so it's all objective and unbiased.

The reason not to believe in God is that there is no testable evidence to support his existance.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. And there's actually some scientific evidence in religious books.

 

[darkendless]

Okay. I'm not trying to promote any specific religion here but what about the scientific references that has been discovered in religious books such as the Qur'an? And these have been discovered by non-Muslim scientists so it's all objective and unbiased.

Loose references based on interpretation only. Give me a year and I could turn the Quran into science 101. The point is a horde of open ended and overly-poetic statements contributes sweet emptiness.

In the Quran it is suggested that humans are made of clay. Nice science there. Clay is formed from the degredation of rock matter. If thats your science then God help you because I can't.

As for bias. I dispute that. The sources i've seen in the past are rather inconvincing at best.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. And there's actually some scientific evidence in religious books.

Evidence is evidence. Until evidence is forthcomming what reason does any human have to accept God unless they forego logic in the process?

There is no useful science in religious text books. Don't kid yourself.

 

[Skwim]

But the existence of God is believable since the creation of the universe is attributed to him.

By whom and why? Why do you put stock in what these other people say? Do they have superior intellect or some kind of proven supernatural insight? From what I've seen, the god proponents do not.

What purpose does the existence of elves, fairies and goblins serve?

So your criterion for belief is that they serve a purpose you find worthy. It appears you're saying, "Propose, don't even have to offer proof or evidence, but simply propose an entity that suits a purpose and I'll believe in it."

Nothing, so why believe that they exist in any shape or form?

Oh, I don't, but there's been no more reasonable evidence to support the existence of a god than theirs.

Like?

Well, that's just the problem. I think most of us who don't believe in a god or that a god created the universe, hold such a position because of just such a lack of fire power. But if you can come up with something unique I think we'll be all ears, so to speak.

 

[Debater Slayer]

By whom and why? Why do you put stock in what these other people say? Do they have superior intellect or some kind of proven supernatural insight? From what I've seen, the god proponents do not.

So your criterion for belief is that they serve a purpose you find worthy. It appears you're saying, "Propose, don't even have to offer proof or evidence, but simply propose an entity that suits a purpose and I'll believe in it."

Oh, I don't, but there's been no more reasonable evidence to support the existence of a god than theirs.

Well, that's just the problem. I think most of us who don't believe in a god or that a god created the universe, hold such a position because of just such a lack of fire power. But if you can come up with something unique I think we'll be all ears, so to speak.

Okay, I can already come up with loads of scientific material out of religious texts but right now I can't post any links until I have at least 15 posts. But even if I come up with something with strong evidence I doubt any of the atheists here will believe in God or change their point of view.

 

[darkendless]

Okay, I can already come up with loads of scientific material out of religious texts but right now I can't post any links until I have at least 15 posts. But even if I come up with something with strong evidence I doubt any of the atheists here will believe in God or change their point of view.

If the material is so conclusive why is it that practicing scientists do not use religious books are sources for their experiements?

I'm genuinly curious to see this "science" in religious books that you speak of.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Okay, I can already come up with loads of scientific material out of religious texts but right now I can't post any links until I have at least 15 posts. But even if I come up with something with strong evidence I doubt any of the atheists here will believe in God or change their point of view.

It is not about making "atheists believe in God or change their point of view".

It is about backing up your claim with actual empirical and objective evidence.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It is not about making "atheists believe in God or change their point of view".

It is about backing up your claim with actual empirical and objective evidence.

This I can already do. But what purpose does it serve if everyone will just keep the same point of view at the end of the day even if there's conclusive evidence?

 

[Skwim]

Okay, I can already come up with loads of scientific material out of religious texts but right now I can't post any links until I have at least 15 posts. But even if I come up with something with strong evidence I doubt any of the atheists here will believe in God or change their point of view.

From time to time there have been those on RF here who have presented "scientific evidence" from the Bible, but all it amounts to are simple statements of facts that agree with what we know today. Or, they've been severely twisted interpretations of passages so as to conform to known facts. So far no one's come up with any scientific evidence that remotely suggests there's a god, but please tell us what you've got, who knows . . . . there are quite a few open minds here.

 

[darkendless]

This I can already do. But what purpose does it serve if everyone will just keep the same point of view at the end of the day even if there's conclusive evidence?

The point is though that there isn't any of this conclusive evidence you speak about.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Okay, here are a couple of videos and a website which contain some of the scientific discoveries in the Qur'an, they might be a bit biased though but just listen to what the scientists are saying and you'll get the idea:

[youtube]FUUPYs0gElU[/youtube]

And here's another one:

[youtube]mqeUYjUYac4[/youtube]

And here's a website which contains many scientific discoveries in the Qur'an. Please don't accuse me of being biased as I have just posted what I found to be the best and most thorough material I have found about the subject.

 

[darkendless]

Okay, here are a couple of videos and a website which contain some of the scientific discoveries in the Qur'an, they might be a bit biased though but just listen to what the scientists are saying and you'll get the idea:

[youtube]FUUPYs0gElU[/youtube]

And here's another one:

[youtube]mqeUYjUYac4[/youtube]

And here's a website which contains many scientific discoveries in the Qur'an. Please don't accuse me of being biased as I have just posted what I found to be the best and most thorough material I have found about the subject.

With the first youtube video I have an issue 10 seconds in: for those who believe in science?

No one believes in science. Science has data so a belief is not necessary. Its a bit hard to take a rediculously biased source seriously from there.

To take a quote from your bottom link "

"Then He turned to the heavens when it was smoke..."

That could mean anything. My point is that "scientists" and people gullibal enough to not question for themselves are seeing only one interpretation and jumping for joy that they've correlated religion and science. The simple fact is that this quote is a joke. It could mean hundreds of things.

You're going to have to do better than that my friend.

 

[Debater Slayer]

With the first youtube video I have an issue 10 seconds in: for those who believe in science?

No one believes in science. Science has data so a belief is not necessary. Its a bit hard to take a rediculously biased source seriously from there.

To take a quote from your bottom link "

"Then He turned to the heavens when it was smoke..."

That could mean anything. My point is that "scientists" and people gullibal enough to not question for themselves are seeing only one interpretation and jumping for joy that they've correlated religion and science. The simple fact is that this quote is a joke. It could mean hundreds of things.

You're going to have to do better than that my friend.

Okay. Here's a clearer scientific discovery found in the Qur'an. Now this one is mostly literal so there's no need to make many interpretations of it.

 

[darkendless]

Okay. Here's a clearer scientific discovery found in the Qur'an. Now this one is mostly literal so there's no need to make many interpretations of it.

"

"We created man from an extract of clay."


Did I not say above that man was not created from clay? Clay is formed by the weathering and degredation of rocks.

I say with 1234567890% certainty that we were not made from an extract of clay. If you're going to now argue that we share similar elements to clays, please don't bother. If you have to make such an arguement you know you're stretching things too far.

 

[Debater Slayer]

"

"We created man from an extract of clay."


Did I not say above that man was not created from clay? Clay is formed by the weathering and degredation of rocks.

I say with 1234567890% certainty that we were not made from an extract of clay. If you're going to now argue that we share similar elements to clays, please don't bother. If you have to make such an arguement you know you're stretching things too far.

I'm not going to argue with you about this one right now so here's another one.

 

[darkendless]

I'm not going to argue with you about this one right now so here's another one.

Thats the best I think i've seen, well done.

You have to admit though that its science for infants. Nothing of substance can be taken from these passages, only very general ideas.