To Atheists.

[rickjames928]

Well, by that logic who's to say there is no flying spaghetti monster, nor any fairies? The statement "God exists" is a statement regarding an objective truth, it is not subjective as the statement "meatballs taste good" is, and so there is a correct and incorrect stance on this position; god either exists, or he doesn't; somebody is correct and somebody is incorrect.

you have a pretty valid point, but whos to say a giant explosion magically sparked life? like i said i dont believe that the big bang is how we came to be. im not saying we magically appeared by a god like figure either. chances are the answer will never present itself but in the mean time let religious people believe what they want to believe in, it gives them comfort. do you feel better when you're telling someone something they were told to believe in since they were a child is fake? no just like you don't like being told their is a god they dont like being told their isnt. theres no right party, its just opinions.

 

[Munus]

Really if you look at it, religion has a 'reason' for the universe to have been created, 'Something about god wanting to do something'.

The Big Bang Theory suggests that at some point in time there was a beginning, but why was that time chosen to happen? If you found out the reason the big bang happened, wouldn't you need to know why the universe existed in the first place?

It's obvious in that case, that it would never be possible to find out why the Big Bang started (if it did). So religions will always have a point that is basically just 'prove that we are wrong'.

and anyways according to Christianity wasn't the universe created like just a few thousand years ago? For that to be true wouldn't a lot of modern science, which is seen to be the truth have to be canceled.

I'm not sure but i think Stephan Hawkins released a book not so long ago, explain how there was no need for a divine being or god. Not sure if he went into why the Big Bang began.

 

[Maleficent]

you have a pretty valid point, but whos to say a giant explosion magically sparked life? like i said i dont believe that the big bang is how we came to be. im not saying we magically appeared by a god like figure either. chances are the answer will never present itself but in the mean time let religious people believe what they want to believe in, it gives them comfort. do you feel better when you're telling someone something they were told to believe in since they were a child is fake? no just like you don't like being told their is a god they dont like being told their isnt. theres no right party, its just opinions.

You seem to have issues my friend if i believed something was real because i told it was real and it wasn't real i would appreciate the fact someone showed me the truth. Science and reason makes more sense then believing in something because a old book says so. You are in fact leaning towards being a believer by your statements you are trying hard to stay neutral.

 

[Maleficent]

Really if you look at it, religion has a 'reason' for the universe to have been created, 'Something about god wanting to do something'.

The Big Bang Theory suggests that at some point in time there was a beginning, but why was that time chosen to happen? If you found out the reason the big bang happened, wouldn't you need to know why the universe existed in the first place?

It's obvious in that case, that it would never be possible to find out why the Big Bang started (if it did). So religions will always have a point that is basically just 'prove that we are wrong'.

and anyways according to Christianity wasn't the universe created like just a few thousand years ago? For that to be true wouldn't a lot of modern science, which is seen to be the truth have to be canceled.

I'm not sure but i think Stephan Hawkins released a book not so long ago, explain how there was no need for a divine being or god. Not sure if he went into why the Big Bang began.

I'm sorry but your idiotic to ask why was X time chosen for the big bang theory to ''supposedly' happen. why is anytime chosen for anything? why does plants grow in X time? It just happens overtime things change as time goes by and just to happen the big bang happened on X date and time.

You don't need to know why the universe existed your suggesting because the universe existed there had to be a specific reason for it. Why couldn't the universe just have been around all along and the big bang just happened to happen by chance.

 

[Munus]

I'm sorry but your idiotic to ask why was X time chosen for the big bang theory to ''supposedly' happen. why is anytime chosen for anything? why does plants grow in X time? It just happens overtime things change as time goes by and just to happen the big bang happened on X date and time.

You don't need to know why the universe existed your suggesting because the universe existed there had to be a specific reason for it. Why couldn't the universe just have been around all along and the big bang just happened to happen by chance.

Sorry looking back on my post i do see that it seems i was sided with religion more than anything. I don't believe in there being a divine god. My point just basically was that because there is no proof of religion existing or not existing, they can tend to just saying 'prove religion is wrong', because it cannot be proven wrong.

And i guess it is true, a certain X time shouldn't necessarily be chosen for a certain reason, especially because our number system was developed by humans, so really wouldn't have existed when the universe was created.

Since the big bang started from something so small, in a place where the universe did not exist, it can't really be seen why or how it happened, because it is outside our universe. The only way to do so would we to escape the universe, which i don't see happening.

 

[Vini]

One of the most common rationales of those who don’t believe in God is that they are waiting for proof of God’s existence. Unfortunately for them, that proof may never come. Well, at least not in the way they are expecting. In today’s world science rules. If God can’t be proven scientifically, many people say, then God must not exist. The problem with that viewpoint is the scientific method itself. Now, the scientific method is a very important and beneficial thing. But it has limitations. The scientific method can only prove observable things that are repeatable through experimentation. For instance, one can prove via the scientific method that gunpowder is flammable. However, one could not prove via the scientific method that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. And you would be laughed out of town if you were to suggest that this didn’t happen simply because you could not prove it scientifically. One also could not prove via the scientific method that love exists, but you would be foolhardy to believe that it doesn’t simply because you cannot prove it. A person has to believe in these things by matter of deduction, by looking at the evidence. So it is with God. You won’t be able to prove His existence by the scientific method, but if you look at the evidence in an unbiased manner, you would have to conclude that God does in fact exist.

 

[Ozaki]

One of the most common rationales of those who don’t believe in God is that they are waiting for proof of God’s existence. Unfortunately for them, that proof may never come. Well, at least not in the way they are expecting. In today’s world science rules. If God can’t be proven scientifically, many people say, then God must not exist. The problem with that viewpoint is the scientific method itself. Now, the scientific method is a very important and beneficial thing. But it has limitations. The scientific method can only prove observable things that are repeatable through experimentation. For instance, one can prove via the scientific method that gunpowder is flammable. However, one could not prove via the scientific method that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. And you would be laughed out of town if you were to suggest that this didn’t happen simply because you could not prove it scientifically. One also could not prove via the scientific method that love exists, but you would be foolhardy to believe that it doesn’t simply because you cannot prove it. A person has to believe in these things by matter of deduction, by looking at the evidence. So it is with God. You won’t be able to prove His existence by the scientific method, but if you look at the evidence in an unbiased manner, you would have to conclude that God does in fact exist.

Your stupidity intrigues me.

"If I take a look at the evidence in an unbiased manner, I would conclude that God does in fact exist."

I'm an unbiased person. Now show me the evidence.

 

[Psywar1]

Really if you look at it, religion has a 'reason' for the universe to have been created, 'Something about god wanting to do something'.

The Big Bang Theory suggests that at some point in time there was a beginning, but why was that time chosen to happen? If you found out the reason the big bang happened, wouldn't you need to know why the universe existed in the first place?

It's obvious in that case, that it would never be possible to find out why the Big Bang started (if it did). So religions will always have a point that is basically just 'prove that we are wrong'.

and anyways according to Christianity wasn't the universe created like just a few thousand years ago? For that to be true wouldn't a lot of modern science, which is seen to be the truth have to be canceled.

I'm not sure but i think Stephan Hawkins released a book not so long ago, explain how there was no need for a divine being or god. Not sure if he went into why the Big Bang began.

Religion does give a reason for the Universe's creation, but that's only to help spread it. Human beings are curious - they want to know why something happened, and some are satisfied with very unbelievable explanations like religion.

Your stupidity intrigues me.

"If I take a look at the evidence in an unbiased manner, I would conclude that God does in fact exist."

I'm an unbiased person. Now show me the evidence.

This. I agree that you can't prove God's existence scientifically, but that is because you can't prove it using any method - he isn't real, as simple as that.

While you probably cannot prove Lincoln was assassinated, you can prove he was murdered. As for love... http://neeshu.com/Articles/true-love-scientifically-proven.html

 

[Vini]

While you probably cannot prove Lincoln was assassinated, you can prove he was murdered. As for love... http://neeshu.com/Articles/true-love-scientifically-proven.html

It was an example.

Your stupidity intrigues me.

"If I take a look at the evidence in an unbiased manner, I would conclude that God does in fact exist."

I'm an unbiased person. Now show me the evidence.

This warrants a brief discussion on cause and effect. Everything that we see follows this rule – there is a cause for every effect. If we see a baseball flying through the air, we can assume that someone hit or threw the baseball. The throwing or hitting is the cause, and the flying through the air is the effect. There are also effects where we might not be aware of the cause, such as a tornado. We see the tornado, and if we are uneducated about weather phenomena, we probably won’t know what caused the tornado. But we can rightly assume that there is some cause. Everything we see has a cause and effect relationship. When you consider this you have to come to the conclusion that there must have been a first cause, the beginning. From our discussion above you might consider that the beginning of the universe was the first cause. However, the beginning, or creation, of the universe, while being a cause is not the first cause. There must be something that caused the universe. And that something must be beyond our comprehension. That something is God. You might be wondering who, then, created God. Paul E. Little, in his book "Know Why You Believe" says it this way. "God by definition is eternal and uncreated. Were God a created being, He would not and could not be God. R.C. Sproul, author and lecturer, explains, ‘Being eternal, God is not an effect. Since He is not an effect He does not require a cause. He is uncaused. It is important to note the difference between an uncaused, self-existent eternal being and an effect that causes itself through self-creation!’"

 

[Ozaki]

It was an example.



This warrants a brief discussion on cause and effect. Everything that we see follows this rule – there is a cause for every effect. If we see a baseball flying through the air, we can assume that someone hit or threw the baseball. The throwing or hitting is the cause, and the flying through the air is the effect. There are also effects where we might not be aware of the cause, such as a tornado. We see the tornado, and if we are uneducated about weather phenomena, we probably won’t know what caused the tornado. But we can rightly assume that there is some cause. Everything we see has a cause and effect relationship. When you consider this you have to come to the conclusion that there must have been a first cause, the beginning. From our discussion above you might consider that the beginning of the universe was the first cause. However, the beginning, or creation, of the universe, while being a cause is not the first cause. There must be something that caused the universe. And that something must be beyond our comprehension. That something is God. You might be wondering who, then, created God. Paul E. Little, in his book "Know Why You Believe" says it this way. "God by definition is eternal and uncreated. Were God a created being, He would not and could not be God. R.C. Sproul, author and lecturer, explains, ‘Being eternal, God is not an effect. Since He is not an effect He does not require a cause. He is uncaused. It is important to note the difference between an uncaused, self-existent eternal being and an effect that causes itself through self-creation!’"

And what makes God being "uncaused" more realistic than the universe being "uncaused"?

 

[rickjames928]

One of the most common rationales of those who don’t believe in God is that they are waiting for proof of God’s existence. Unfortunately for them, that proof may never come. Well, at least not in the way they are expecting. In today’s world science rules. If God can’t be proven scientifically, many people say, then God must not exist. The problem with that viewpoint is the scientific method itself. Now, the scientific method is a very important and beneficial thing. But it has limitations. The scientific method can only prove observable things that are repeatable through experimentation. For instance, one can prove via the scientific method that gunpowder is flammable. However, one could not prove via the scientific method that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. And you would be laughed out of town if you were to suggest that this didn’t happen simply because you could not prove it scientifically. One also could not prove via the scientific method that love exists, but you would be foolhardy to believe that it doesn’t simply because you cannot prove it. A person has to believe in these things by matter of deduction, by looking at the evidence. So it is with God. You won’t be able to prove His existence by the scientific method, but if you look at the evidence in an unbiased manner, you would have to conclude that God does in fact exist.

It was an example.



This warrants a brief discussion on cause and effect. Everything that we see follows this rule – there is a cause for every effect. If we see a baseball flying through the air, we can assume that someone hit or threw the baseball. The throwing or hitting is the cause, and the flying through the air is the effect. There are also effects where we might not be aware of the cause, such as a tornado. We see the tornado, and if we are uneducated about weather phenomena, we probably won’t know what caused the tornado. But we can rightly assume that there is some cause. Everything we see has a cause and effect relationship. When you consider this you have to come to the conclusion that there must have been a first cause, the beginning. From our discussion above you might consider that the beginning of the universe was the first cause. However, the beginning, or creation, of the universe, while being a cause is not the first cause. There must be something that caused the universe. And that something must be beyond our comprehension. That something is God. You might be wondering who, then, created God. Paul E. Little, in his book "Know Why You Believe" says it this way. "God by definition is eternal and uncreated. Were God a created being, He would not and could not be God. R.C. Sproul, author and lecturer, explains, ‘Being eternal, God is not an effect. Since He is not an effect He does not require a cause. He is uncaused. It is important to note the difference between an uncaused, self-existent eternal being and an effect that causes itself through self-creation!’"

this guy is making more sense then most people, athiests use that "give me proof of god" thing constantly. I want proof that god isn't real, and don't give me the big bang theory or the evolution theory, that doesn't disprove anything. Again im not christian but i do want it to be known that god isn't and entity but more of an excuse for people to act right in life, it gives them fear that their actions will be judged. now if you actually look at it from my point of view its simply a reason for people to have hope, there is no way to prove his existence or disprove it.

The reason I like vini's post is because he actually has an intelligent argument rather then most atheists that just say "there's no god, if there is a god show me proof." this isn't a biased opinion on atheists but it is how most of them have portrayed their argument to me irl. I don't get why athiests make it a point to denounce religion, it basically has no purpose. we all have opinions and you cant say if yours or anyone else's is any better anyone else.

 

[Dr. James]

Remember it's still just a theory, and not an accepted fact. So before some of you people starting attacking other theories that retains to God, remember they're all theories.

Cell theory is a theory too, are you saying we aren't made out of cells?
Just because you call it a theory doesn't mean it hasn't been proven.

 

[Vini]

And what makes God being "uncaused" more realistic than the universe being "uncaused"?

Why you thinking realistic if your talking about God?

this guy is making more sense then most people, athiests use that "give me proof of god" thing constantly. I want proof that god isn't real, and don't give me the big bang theory or the evolution theory, that doesn't disprove anything. Again im not christian but i do want it to be known that god isn't and entity but more of an excuse for people to act right in life, it gives them fear that their actions will be judged. now if you actually look at it from my point of view its simply a reason for people to have hope, there is no way to prove his existence or disprove it.

The reason I like vini's post is because he actually has an intelligent argument rather then most atheists that just say "there's no god, if there is a god show me proof." this isn't a biased opinion on atheists but it is how most of them have portrayed their argument to me irl. I don't get why athiests make it a point to denounce religion, it basically has no purpose. we all have opinions and you cant say if yours or anyone else's is any better anyone else.

And thx.

 

[somethingiwillremember]

What do you think 'caused' the whole universe to begin?

The only honest answer is "I don't know". I could speculate and say that the answer probably lies somewhere within the field of quantum mechanics and quantum gravity, but that would, of course, just be speculation. However, I do think it is more plausible that the cause of the universe as we know it in it's current form (it's important to emphasise this "as we know it" point) was caused by nature (non-intelligence) and not by an intelligent creator. Why do I think this is more plausible? Well I think that making up an intelligent creator to explain the universe's creation (in it's current form) only creates more problems as then arises the question: Who/what created the creator? Who/what created the creator's creator? If you make the case that your creator god was uncaused, why can't you just say the universe was uncaused? Also, if the reason you believe in an intelligent creator is because the universe is too incredibly complex, how can you believe in an intelligent creator who, by definition, must be even MORE complex than the universe?

This is my point of view.

Oh good, now I get to hear YOU'RE point of view. And it is YOU'RE point of view, isn't it?.....

What if I were to tell you that one of the most intelligent, respected people in modern history came to a belief in God because of the evidence?

...And here I was expecting to read your point of view. Instead, what I get is a blatant attempt at an appeal to authority (logical fallacy). As far as I'm aware, Einstein did not believe in the god of the bible or, indeed, any god. And even if he did.... who cares? Just because someone intelligent believes something, does that make it true? People believed the earth was flat for a very long time, including some very intelligent people. Other people's beliefs should have no influence on your beliefs. I believe things based on reason and evidence, NOT because of majority opinion or because "someone smart believes it".

Would you believe me? Well it did happen. There was this atheist physicist who had worked out a model of how the universe functioned. His model was so correct that to this day, with all the vast knowledge we have about the universe, his model (or slight variations of it) has yet to be disproved. You’ve probably heard of this physicist. His name is Albert Einstein, and his model is the General Theory of Relativity. You see, when he began to consider the implications of his theory, he realized that the universe had to have had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, it had to have had someone or something that began it. Einstein, not wanting to accept the idea that God exists, tried to tinker with his theory, but his tinkering never quite worked out. He eventually was forced to conclude that there was, in fact, some unknown power that created the universe.

You are fractally wrong. Einstein did not conclude that there was some "unknown power" that "created" the universe. You're just tossing around buzzwords. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific model concerning the expansion of spacetime from a singularity. It says nothing about how the universe came into existence. If you want a basic understanding of what the Big Bang Theory is (and who wouldn't? I mean, aren't you at all interested in our beautiful universe?), watch these vids, they are very educational:

Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPUutjtqfw&feature=related
Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RHfUFljTmw&p=C4DE305273F9C453&playnext=1&index=7

In the decades since Einstein discovered the General Theory of Relativity, science has confirmed that there was a beginning to the universe (called the Big Bang). All other models, including the steady state and oscillating universe models, do not fit scientific observation. In other words, the universe has not always existed. There was a point in time when it began, when it was created. And that means there is a Creator.

All I'm reading is one big Argument from Ignorance, ie. We don't know X therefore Y is true. No, I'm sorry but that's not how logic works. Have another try.

Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean you can stick in whatever answer you want and claim it is true. For instance, I could easily say that Zeus created the Universe and not the christian god. Would you believe me? No. But why wouldn't you? Why do you believe it was the christian god and not Zeus? How can you distinguish between these two claims when there is not a shred of evidence in favour of either them? Why do you reject the gods of all other religions? When you can answer that question, you can understand why I don't believe in your god.

Just because the cause of the universe as we know it is yet unexplained, doesn't mean your god exists. Just as it doesn't mean Zeus exists, Allah exists or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Ozaki]

do you feel better when you're telling someone something they were told to believe in since they were a child is fake?

Yes, I do feel better, because in this situation I can (hopefully, if they're not too idiotic) turn an idiot into an ex-idiot. Would you rather we live in la-la-land, where Santa and the Easter Bunny roam free?

now if you actually look at it from my point of view its simply a reason for people to have hope, there is no way to prove his existence or disprove it.

Did you know that there is big invisible talking carrot who lives down the road from you, and if you're a good boy he's going to give you a sack of cash and a kiss on the cheek?
Did that give you hope?

I don't get why athiests make it a point to denounce religion, it basically has no purpose. we all have opinions and you cant say if yours or anyone else's is any better anyone else.

Vini has essentially said "We don't know anything for sure about how the universe started" (which is correct), and then proceeded to claim that this proves there is a God. Opinions are fine when they are justified and I am fine with religious people, but when they try to PROVE their religion with pure faith it becomes clear that they're yet another brainwashed nitwit preaching their ignorant ideas. And so we just can't resist replying.

Why you thinking realistic if your talking about God?

I don't understand. Are you renouncing your religion, or is this just a pathetic way of getting out of the debate?

And it is YOU'RE point of view, isn't it?.....

"You are point of view"? I recommend learning English.

 

[somethingiwillremember]

this guy is making more sense then most people, athiests use that "give me proof of god" thing constantly. I want proof that god isn't real

Do you also want proof that leprechauns aren't real? That fairies aren't real?

Hey man, if you don't think that the Invisible pink unicorn exists, then prove it! Go on, prove it to me. I demand proof that it doesn't exist.

Do you see how absurd demanding proof for a negative is?

Educate yourself: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof

....there is no way to prove his existence or disprove it.

How could you possibly know that? Do you have evidence to back up this bold assertion? Also, I noticed you said "his" existence, implying this god is a male. If there is no way to prove this god's existence, then how did you determine its gender? :huh:

 

[Ozaki]

then how did you determine it's gender? :huh:

It is gender?

I'm truly confused now, although you are right.

 

[somethingiwillremember]

It is gender?

I'm truly confused now, although you are right.

Ah you got me lol. You can blame my lack of grammatical knowledge.

 

[Maleficent]

Sorry looking back on my post i do see that it seems i was sided with religion more than anything. I don't believe in there being a divine god. My point just basically was that because there is no proof of religion existing or not existing, they can tend to just saying 'prove religion is wrong', because it cannot be proven wrong.

And i guess it is true, a certain X time shouldn't necessarily be chosen for a certain reason, especially because our number system was developed by humans, so really wouldn't have existed when the universe was created.

Since the big bang started from something so small, in a place where the universe did not exist, it can't really be seen why or how it happened, because it is outside our universe. The only way to do so would we to escape the universe, which i don't see happening.

You don't see a lot of things ''happening'' but it does indeed happen that's what makes it all so beautiful. Also you should proof read your post you can prove religion exists look around you. We don't have to prove anything the religious people have to prove they are right. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Maleficent]

Why you thinking realistic if your talking about God?

So you want us to think like idiots and believe fairies and angels watch over us. Where were peoples guardians when people get gunned down or raped the list goes on.
You basically want us to use our imagination when thinking about god but then you have to realize your imagination isn't real til you MAKE it real or at least try.

this guy is making more sense then most people, athiests use that "give me proof of god" thing constantly. I want proof that god isn't real

Your honestly a easy target.

The burden of proof is on YOU.