Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[sealybobo]

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

I'm explaining how you made it up. Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.

There's an equal probability for the existence or not or a god until proven otherwise. You, sir, have nothing.

There's another problem, you can't say there are equal odds unless you can actually make a case for those odds. You have done a magnificent job shooting down all of the cases for God, but you don't have a path to the God exists's case. You see, the problem you have with statistics is that if you say there are equal chances of each outcome and you ran a monte carlo simulation you would actually get nearly half outcomes being that there is a God. So, you can't use those odds because you have not proven those odds.

Yea mudda, make your case for how a god is an equally probable outcome. Ding even realizes you are full of shit.

Make your case for either side so we at least know you understand what we are discussing here.

Why do you believe a god has a 50 50 chance?

I believe you are going to prove agnostics are retards.

 

[ding]

.

you quote their bible, you are a 4th century christian, a fraud.

So what Bible do you quote?

.

So what Bible do you quote?

the spoken religion of the Almighty, the same source as your 4th century forged book

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

.

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

the above is a 4th century forgery used to instill fear - there are no etchings in stone or records from the time of the events in antiquity for any of the proclamations in your book.


Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani


the above is the spoken religion and the epitaph your book knowingly disguises. a commemoration lost to future generations in pursuit of the Triumph of Good vs Evil - you represent a hollow, dead end of misery and deciet ...

View attachment 106933

bing the inquisitor

Scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's DNA. They've produced theories, backed by empirical evidence including imaging studies of the brain at work that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around.

Like our physiological DNA, the psychological mechanisms behind faith evolved over the eons through natural selection. They helped our ancestors work effectively in small groups and survive and reproduce, traits developed long before recorded history, from foundations deep in our mammalian, primate and African hunter-gatherer past.

Or does it prove the opposite? If we were really made to worship God, wouldn't we expect to get some sort of advantages through nature? Wouldn't you expect there to be some feedback rewarding good behaviors and suffering the consequences of bad behaviors? And wouldn't we expect to see some sort of positive progression in the one's who were doing things right? Yep, there's science for all that.

 

[sealybobo]

So what Bible do you quote?

.

So what Bible do you quote?

the spoken religion of the Almighty, the same source as your 4th century forged book

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

.

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

the above is a 4th century forgery used to instill fear - there are no etchings in stone or records from the time of the events in antiquity for any of the proclamations in your book.


Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani


the above is the spoken religion and the epitaph your book knowingly disguises. a commemoration lost to future generations in pursuit of the Triumph of Good vs Evil - you represent a hollow, dead end of misery and deciet ...

View attachment 106933

bing the inquisitor

Scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's DNA. They've produced theories, backed by empirical evidence including imaging studies of the brain at work that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around.

Like our physiological DNA, the psychological mechanisms behind faith evolved over the eons through natural selection. They helped our ancestors work effectively in small groups and survive and reproduce, traits developed long before recorded history, from foundations deep in our mammalian, primate and African hunter-gatherer past.

Or does it prove the opposite? If we were really made to worship God, wouldn't we expect to get some sort of advantages through nature? Wouldn't you expect there to be some feedback rewarding good behaviors and suffering the consequences of bad behaviors? And wouldn't we expect to see some sort of positive progression in the one's who were doing things right? Yep, there's science for all that.

See Czernbog keeps telling you to stop doing this. You say, "If we were really made to worship God". You haven't even established that this thing exists. Now you have graduated to telling us we were made to worship it. This is getting weird. LOL. And now you are saying it programmed us to worship it. But then he made a glitch with me, right?

 

[Czernobog]

The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created. You and I are quite literally a part of the universe. We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of. The universe is quite literally discussing itself. Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy? Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now? Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware. How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?



Carl Sagan — 'We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.

You lose again.

Okay. I'm going to just take your points one at a time, and I am going to start with the most ridiculous of them. You quoted Carl Sagan, without even a little understanding of Carl Sagan. The quote you used was taken out of context, and ignores the poetry of his statement, which had nothing to do with the science that he presented. The oceans are teeming with fish. Is the ocean, itself, "alive"? No. The ocean is simply H2O. That's it. It is a collection of Hydrogen Dioxide molecules. It is not alive. It is not conscious. it has no intelligence. It is just water. To suggest that humanity is representative of the entire universe is egocentricity at its worst. We are not representative of the universe as a whole. hell, we are not even representative of our solar system as a whole. We are just one tiny little speck, existing in one insignificant little corner, of the vast, lifeless, mostly empty exance of space. WE are self-aware, because we are alive, andhave developped our intelligence to the point of self-awareness, However, we are not the universe. We simply reside in it. The universe in which we reside, is cold, lifeless, and void of consciousness, let alone self awareness. You have replaced rational scientific study with irrational philosophical musings, called it rationality, and declared me the "loser".

How about you make a decision. Do you want to debate rational scientific study, and evidence, or do you want to wax poetic over philosophy. Because you can't do the latter, and call your argument rational.

 

[ding]

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Before you can know who God is, you have to first actually believe that there is a higher power than man. I for one do not believe that that is a tall order. Seems there is something greater than man out there. We know for a fact that at a minimum our level of intelligence exists. Is it really a leap to believe that there is something greater than that out there. The more I study science, the more I don't see how it could be any other way. Only then should you make an attempt at the who. You really shouldn't mix those until you do, it will only confuse you and lead you to accepting Czernobog's BS arguments which will only make you look foolish when you trot them out and get beat down. But if you do decide to take that small step, I suggest Huston Smith's Illustrated World Religions which gives a fair accounting of all the major religions. They have a lot more in common than you think. Of course the smart money is that this is all fun and games and you couldn't give a rat's ass.

Yes it's very easy to fill in the blank for a question you will never be able to answer. That's why I am smarter than you. The answer is we just don't know.

And I did believe in God. I was thinking about this in church yesterday. Lots of time to think when you are bored. But a few years ago I prayed to God I'd join the church if I got this job. I got the job and joined the church. Then the job didn't work out. It was a horrible job. Thanks for nothing God.

Then I became an atheist and got a great job. maybe because i'm smarter now. Lots of atheists here. Absolutely no holy rollers. Where do they even exist in real life?

See, you religious nuts are the nuts here on USMB. You guys keep your mouths shut in person but come here and talk crazy shit. You don't want to be laughed at so you do keep your crazy thoughts in your home and church. YOU are the cowards. Come evangelicize around me and I'll politely mock you while I smile and nod. But I will challenge you in person. Fact is very few theists wear their religion on their sleeves. You guys are basically in the closet.

But you can answer it. It's not like you can't test it. So do yourself a favor and just call it what it is. A bullshit excuse. In fact, its not even that good because you did answer it. When all you have ever done is argue against it, there is no way in hell you can claim you didn't know.

If that is how you view prayer, you suck at it. You think bargaining is prayer? You think you have something He wants? Let me tell you how relationships with omnipresent omniscient omnipotent beings work... it's never their fault. It's always your fault, and He's going to keep bringing you back to it because He's got nothing better to do. I don't know what crazy talk you are talking about. It's like you have a movie playing in your head or something. If you are going to accuse me of something is it too much to ask that you do so with some specificity?

I don't mind you laughing at me. I am happy to condescend to you. I hope you take my barbs as well too.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

Ya know. You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative. You get that is not how this works, right? Atheists don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion. You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim. I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period. Full stop. It makes no assertions about possibilities. The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, anything, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible. Thus, the existence of God is a possiblity. Atheists make no claims about the possible. Only about the observable, and proven. There. is. No. God. Period. Full stop.

Now. Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?

 

[ding]

.
the spoken religion of the Almighty, the same source as your 4th century forged book

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

.

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

the above is a 4th century forgery used to instill fear - there are no etchings in stone or records from the time of the events in antiquity for any of the proclamations in your book.


Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani


the above is the spoken religion and the epitaph your book knowingly disguises. a commemoration lost to future generations in pursuit of the Triumph of Good vs Evil - you represent a hollow, dead end of misery and deciet ...

View attachment 106933

bing the inquisitor

Scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's DNA. They've produced theories, backed by empirical evidence including imaging studies of the brain at work that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around.

Like our physiological DNA, the psychological mechanisms behind faith evolved over the eons through natural selection. They helped our ancestors work effectively in small groups and survive and reproduce, traits developed long before recorded history, from foundations deep in our mammalian, primate and African hunter-gatherer past.

Or does it prove the opposite? If we were really made to worship God, wouldn't we expect to get some sort of advantages through nature? Wouldn't you expect there to be some feedback rewarding good behaviors and suffering the consequences of bad behaviors? And wouldn't we expect to see some sort of positive progression in the one's who were doing things right? Yep, there's science for all that.

See Czernbog keeps telling you to stop doing this. You say, "If we were really made to worship God". You haven't even established that this thing exists. Now you have graduated to telling us we were made to worship it. This is getting weird. LOL. And now you are saying it programmed us to worship it. But then he made a glitch with me, right?

That's how it works, dude. I put forth the hypothesis and then prove it. It turns out that believing in God has advantages.

 

[Czernobog]

Let me tell you how relationships with omnipresent omniscient omnipotent beings work... it's never their fault.

And there is the irrationality of religion. "It's never their fault". Period. Full stop. For every good thing that hapens, God gets 100% credit. It doesn't matter what it is, or how that good thing came about, God gets the credit. Go ahead, and pick a positive event. I don't care what it is, just pick one, and I will demonstrate how it was "God that did it". However, God is never responsible for a single bad thing that ever happens. Not. One, because...It's. Never. Their. Fault. period. Full stop.

 

[ding]

The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created. You and I are quite literally a part of the universe. We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of. The universe is quite literally discussing itself. Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy? Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now? Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware. How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?



Carl Sagan — 'We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.

You lose again.

Okay. I'm going to just take your points one at a time, and I am going to start with the most ridiculous of them. You quoted Carl Sagan, without even a little understanding of Carl Sagan. The quote you used was taken out of context, and ignores the poetry of his statement, which had nothing to do with the science that he presented. The oceans are teeming with fish. Is the ocean, itself, "alive"? No. The ocean is simpmly H2O. That's it. It is a collection of Hydrogen Dioxide molecules. It is not alive. It is not conscious. it has no intelligence. It is just water. To suggest that humanity is representative of the entire universe is egocentricity at its worst. You have replaced rational scientific study with irrational philosophical musings, called it rationality, and declared me the "loser".

How about you make a decision. Do you want to debate rational scientic study, and evidence, or do you want to wax poetic over philosophy. Because you can't do the latter, and call your argument rational.

Bullshit, even Carl Sagan... an atheist... was not so devoid of reason to deny the reality that we are literally made up of star dust and that our atoms literally came into existence when space and time did. Are you seriously arguing against the scientific laws and principles which prove this?

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old? According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago...."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Now what do you have to say? How's your mocking going now?

 

[ding]

Let me tell you how relationships with omnipresent omniscient omnipotent beings work... it's never their fault.

And there is the irrationality of religion. "It's never their fault". Period. Full stop. For every good thing that hapens, God gets 100% credit. It doesn't matter what it is, or how that good thing came about, God gets the credit. Go ahead, and pick a positive event. I don't care what it is, just pick one, and I will demonstrate how it was "God that did it". However, God is never responsible for a single bad thing that ever happens. Not. One, because...It's. Never. Their. Fault. period. Full stop.

This is you mixing the two questions; 1. Is there a God? 2. Who is God?. You are trying to use 2 to disprove 1. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They are independent questions. You are trying to take a sophomore class as a freshman. You are viewing this as a possible way out of the freshman classes that are kicking your butt. You wouldn't stand a chance at the sophomore level either.

 

[ding]

The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created. You and I are quite literally a part of the universe. We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of. The universe is quite literally discussing itself. Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy? Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now? Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware. How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?



Carl Sagan — 'We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.

You lose again.

Okay. I'm going to just take your points one at a time, and I am going to start with the most ridiculous of them. You quoted Carl Sagan, without even a little understanding of Carl Sagan. The quote you used was taken out of context, and ignores the poetry of his statement, which had nothing to do with the science that he presented. The oceans are teeming with fish. Is the ocean, itself, "alive"? No. The ocean is simply H2O. That's it. It is a collection of Hydrogen Dioxide molecules. It is not alive. It is not conscious. it has no intelligence. It is just water. To suggest that humanity is representative of the entire universe is egocentricity at its worst. We are not representative of the universe as a whole. hell, we are not even representative of our solar system as a whole. We are just one tiny little speck, existing in one insignificant little corner, of the vast, lifeless, mostly empty exance of space. WE are self-aware, because we are alive, andhave developped our intelligence to the point of self-awareness, However, we are not the universe. We simply reside in it. The universe in which we reside, is cold, lifeless, and void of consciousness, let alone self awareness. You have replaced rational scientific study with irrational philosophical musings, called it rationality, and declared me the "loser".

How about you make a decision. Do you want to debate rational scientific study, and evidence, or do you want to wax poetic over philosophy. Because you can't do the latter, and call your argument rational.

You are not going to take my points one at a time. You are done.

 

[Czernobog]

The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created. You and I are quite literally a part of the universe. We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of. The universe is quite literally discussing itself. Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy? Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now? Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware. How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?



Carl Sagan — 'We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.

You lose again.

Okay. I'm going to just take your points one at a time, and I am going to start with the most ridiculous of them. You quoted Carl Sagan, without even a little understanding of Carl Sagan. The quote you used was taken out of context, and ignores the poetry of his statement, which had nothing to do with the science that he presented. The oceans are teeming with fish. Is the ocean, itself, "alive"? No. The ocean is simpmly H2O. That's it. It is a collection of Hydrogen Dioxide molecules. It is not alive. It is not conscious. it has no intelligence. It is just water. To suggest that humanity is representative of the entire universe is egocentricity at its worst. You have replaced rational scientific study with irrational philosophical musings, called it rationality, and declared me the "loser".

How about you make a decision. Do you want to debate rational scientic study, and evidence, or do you want to wax poetic over philosophy. Because you can't do the latter, and call your argument rational.

Bullshit, even Carl Sagan... an atheist... was not so devoid of reason to deny the reality that we are literally made up of star dust and that our atoms literally came into existence when space and time did. Are you seriously arguing against the scientific laws and principles which prove this?

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old? According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago...."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Now what do you have to say? How's your mocking going now?

I'm not denying that. That has nothing to do with your statement. You know what? We're going to resolve this with just a few, simple, yes, or no questions:

We are made of the same stuff as the entire universe, correct?

 

[Czernobog]

Let me tell you how relationships with omnipresent omniscient omnipotent beings work... it's never their fault.

And there is the irrationality of religion. "It's never their fault". Period. Full stop. For every good thing that hapens, God gets 100% credit. It doesn't matter what it is, or how that good thing came about, God gets the credit. Go ahead, and pick a positive event. I don't care what it is, just pick one, and I will demonstrate how it was "God that did it". However, God is never responsible for a single bad thing that ever happens. Not. One, because...It's. Never. Their. Fault. period. Full stop.

This is you mixing the two questions; 1. Is there a God? 2. Who is God?. You are trying to use 2 to disprove 1. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They are independent questions. You are trying to take a sophomore class as a freshman. You are viewing this as a possible way out of the freshman classes that are kicking your butt. You wouldn't stand a chance at the sophomore level either.

Well, that's because you insist on skipping over question one. I have asked repeatedly for your objective evidence that God exists, and your answer is, "You can't find that, because he is supernatural, and outside of the observable universe". So, you don't get to complain when I skip over Question 1, as you have insisted on doing that during this entire discussion.

 

[ding]

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

I'm arguing against an atheist, isn't that what you claimed I didn't do and therefore wasn't agnostic?

Loser. Again.

No. If you were arguing against the atheists you would be making my argument and concluding that it was not knowable either way. You are quibbling over the philosophy of belief system not the existence of God which is the core of the philosophies. You can't bring yourself to argue the other side of existence because you don't believe it. Not that you don't know it. You literally do not believe it and that is why you are an atheist.

Why would I argue your side, you have no proof either? And you're totally unclear of the concept of agnosticism, I don't believe both sides equally, I reject both sides equally for lack of real proof.

That's my point. You have not rejected both sides equally. I even gave you a way to do it.

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

 

[ding]

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

I'm arguing against an atheist, isn't that what you claimed I didn't do and therefore wasn't agnostic?

Loser. Again.

No. If you were arguing against the atheists you would be making my argument and concluding that it was not knowable either way. You are quibbling over the philosophy of belief system not the existence of God which is the core of the philosophies. You can't bring yourself to argue the other side of existence because you don't believe it. Not that you don't know it. You literally do not believe it and that is why you are an atheist.

Why would I argue your side, you have no proof either? And you're totally unclear of the concept of agnosticism, I don't believe both sides equally, I reject both sides equally for lack of real proof.

That's my point. You have not rejected both sides equally. I even gave you a way to do it.

You made it up

Scientists have so far identified about 20 hard-wired, evolved "adaptations" as the building blocks of religion. Like attachment, they are mechanisms that underlie human interactions: Brain-imaging studies at the National Institutes of Health showed that when test subjects were read statements about religion and asked to agree or disagree, the same brain networks that process human social behavior — our ability to negotiate relationships with others — were engaged.

Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods

Made up what? You responded to the wrong thread. Are you talking about if we were really made to worship God, would expect to get some sort of advantages through nature? I didn't make that up.

 

[ding]

Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce "out-group" hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies. Religion hijacks these traits. The rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, for example, or the doctrinal battles between Protestant and Catholic reflect our "groupish" tendencies.

To argue that it is Darwinian and not beneficial to natural selection is at odds with Darwin himself.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

The cyclic models - all but one - violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, have major flaws and do not work. The lone exception of the cyclic models is not really a cyclic model as it has increasing time between cycles such that it to had a beginning.

you ignore the fact all matter is traveling on a trajectory of a finite angle and will in unison return to their origin at the same time and recompress to initiate a new moment of Singularity, BB is cyclical.

 

[ding]

The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created. You and I are quite literally a part of the universe. We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of. The universe is quite literally discussing itself. Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy? Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now? Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware. How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?



Carl Sagan — 'We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.

You lose again.

Okay. I'm going to just take your points one at a time, and I am going to start with the most ridiculous of them. You quoted Carl Sagan, without even a little understanding of Carl Sagan. The quote you used was taken out of context, and ignores the poetry of his statement, which had nothing to do with the science that he presented. The oceans are teeming with fish. Is the ocean, itself, "alive"? No. The ocean is simpmly H2O. That's it. It is a collection of Hydrogen Dioxide molecules. It is not alive. It is not conscious. it has no intelligence. It is just water. To suggest that humanity is representative of the entire universe is egocentricity at its worst. You have replaced rational scientific study with irrational philosophical musings, called it rationality, and declared me the "loser".

How about you make a decision. Do you want to debate rational scientic study, and evidence, or do you want to wax poetic over philosophy. Because you can't do the latter, and call your argument rational.

Bullshit, even Carl Sagan... an atheist... was not so devoid of reason to deny the reality that we are literally made up of star dust and that our atoms literally came into existence when space and time did. Are you seriously arguing against the scientific laws and principles which prove this?

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old? According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago...."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Now what do you have to say? How's your mocking going now?

I'm not denying that. That has nothing to do with your statement. You know what? We're going to resolve this with just a few, simple, yes, or no questions:

We are made of the same stuff as the entire universe, correct?

The matter that makes us up was present at the big bang when space and time came into existence. Since that time it has only changed form. Yes.

 

[ding]

Let me tell you how relationships with omnipresent omniscient omnipotent beings work... it's never their fault.

And there is the irrationality of religion. "It's never their fault". Period. Full stop. For every good thing that hapens, God gets 100% credit. It doesn't matter what it is, or how that good thing came about, God gets the credit. Go ahead, and pick a positive event. I don't care what it is, just pick one, and I will demonstrate how it was "God that did it". However, God is never responsible for a single bad thing that ever happens. Not. One, because...It's. Never. Their. Fault. period. Full stop.

This is you mixing the two questions; 1. Is there a God? 2. Who is God?. You are trying to use 2 to disprove 1. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They are independent questions. You are trying to take a sophomore class as a freshman. You are viewing this as a possible way out of the freshman classes that are kicking your butt. You wouldn't stand a chance at the sophomore level either.

Well, that's because you insist on skipping over question one. I have asked repeatedly for your objective evidence that God exists, and your answer is, "You can't find that, because he is supernatural, and outside of the observable universe". So, you don't get to complain when I skip over Question 1, as you have insisted on doing that during this entire discussion.

Which is why I am examining what He created. I did so and then made my case. The dots have been connected.

 

[ding]

.

The cyclic models - all but one - violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, have major flaws and do not work. The lone exception of the cyclic models is not really a cyclic model as it has increasing time between cycles such that it to had a beginning.

you ignore the fact all matter is traveling on a trajectory of a finite angle and will in unison return to their origin at the same time and recompress to initiate a new moment of Singularity, BB is cyclical.

No. I am just ignoring you until your manners improve.