God vs Athiesm: Which Is More Rationale?

[alang1216]

I have zero belief the rocks on my ranch will be alive someday.

I can guarantee that they won't be rocks forever. Given the right conditions and enough time, who knows.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I have zero belief the rocks on my ranch will be alive someday.

I can guarantee that they won't be rocks forever. Given the right conditions and enough time, who knows.

Dirt does not naturally build 747's.

 

[Weatherman2020]

We are created in Gods image meaning we enjoy the things God does.

Wow, you know what God enjoys? Does he like all music or just Country?

I do know what God enjoys. He told me. And you if you did some homework.

 

[alang1216]

Dirt does not naturally build 747's.

No, but you're leaving out some steps, like when the rock is dissolved. The dissolved atoms and molecules are changed through natural processes until one molecule gains the ability to self-replicate and becomes subject to the forces of evolution and natural selection. After that it is only a matter of time until that 747 flies.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Dirt does not naturally build 747's.

No, but you're leaving out some steps, like when the rock is dissolved. The dissolved atoms and molecules are changed through natural processes until one molecule gains the ability to self-replicate and becomes subject to the forces of evolution and natural selection. After that it is only a matter of time until that 747 flies.

Why would an atom want to build a 747?

 

[alang1216]

We are created in Gods image meaning we enjoy the things God does.

Wow, you know what God enjoys? Does he like all music or just Country?

I do know what God enjoys. He told me. And you if you did some homework.

I've read the Bible but I don't recall God mentioning sunsets and only vague memories of music. Would you please provide the passages. Thanks.

 

[alang1216]

Why would an atom want to build a 747?

Self-replicating molecules qualify as life and will likely give rise to ever more complicated life, eventually leading to life that desires to fly.

 

[Weatherman2020]

We are created in Gods image meaning we enjoy the things God does.

Wow, you know what God enjoys? Does he like all music or just Country?

I do know what God enjoys. He told me. And you if you did some homework.

I've read the Bible but I don't recall God mentioning sunsets and only vague memories of music. Would you please provide the passages. Thanks.

The Bible is filled with references to God and music. You can start at Psalm 150.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Why would an atom want to build a 747?

Self-replicating molecules qualify as life and will likely give rise to ever more complicated life, eventually leading to life that desires to fly.

I had no idea anything on the periodic chart had DNA.

 

[alang1216]

The Bible is filled with references to God and music. You can start at Psalm 150.

Very nice, thanks. Got a link to those sunsets?

 

[alang1216]

I had no idea anything on the periodic chart had DNA.

There is nothing in DNA that can't be found in rocks but don't believe the only DNA represents life. Life is much older than DNA.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I had no idea anything on the periodic chart had DNA.

There is nothing in DNA that can't be found in rocks but don't believe the only DNA represents life. Life is much older than DNA.

Do tell how rocks procreate.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The Bible is filled with references to God and music. You can start at Psalm 150.

Very nice, thanks. Got a link to those sunsets?

You didn't read much if you don't know a verse relating good and God.

 

[alang1216]

Do tell how rocks procreate.

First the rocks weather and erode, then the atoms and molecules are mixed and subjected to a variety of natural forces. Eventually, a molecule gains the ability to self-replicate and voila: procreation.

 

[alang1216]

The Bible is filled with references to God and music. You can start at Psalm 150.

Very nice, thanks. Got a link to those sunsets?

You didn't read much if you don't know a verse relating good and God.

God is good by definition. I just don't recall the sunsets you referred to.

 

[sealybobo]

Is it rational to believe in God?

Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.

A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.

The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.

A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.

Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.

But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.

If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.

There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”

Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a Big Banger.

But is this Big Banger God?

Why couldn’t it be just another universe? Because Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity says that all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. So there’s no time before the Big Bang.

And even if there is time before the Big Bang, even if there is a multi-verse, that is, many universes with many Big Bangs, as String Theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning. An absolute beginning is what most people mean by God.

Yet, some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a Creator. Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

Do you really believe time has a beginning and end? What did God do before? What will God do after the end of time?

So time is eternal and no need for a god

 

[Weatherman2020]

Is it rational to believe in God?

Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.

A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.

The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.

A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.

Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.

But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.

If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.

There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”

Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a Big Banger.

But is this Big Banger God?

Why couldn’t it be just another universe? Because Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity says that all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. So there’s no time before the Big Bang.

And even if there is time before the Big Bang, even if there is a multi-verse, that is, many universes with many Big Bangs, as String Theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning. An absolute beginning is what most people mean by God.

Yet, some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a Creator. Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

Do you really believe time has a beginning and end? What did God do before? What will God do after the end of time?

So time is eternal and no need for a god

Time is a variable and one of dozens of dimensions. And yes, I think our universe had a beginning, just as most scientists do.

 

[sealybobo]

Is it rational to believe in God?

Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.

A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.

The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.

A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.

Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.

But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.

If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.

There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”

Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a Big Banger.

But is this Big Banger God?

Why couldn’t it be just another universe? Because Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity says that all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. So there’s no time before the Big Bang.

And even if there is time before the Big Bang, even if there is a multi-verse, that is, many universes with many Big Bangs, as String Theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning. An absolute beginning is what most people mean by God.

Yet, some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a Creator. Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

Do you really believe time has a beginning and end? What did God do before? What will God do after the end of time?

So time is eternal and no need for a god

Time is a variable and one of dozens of dimensions. And yes, I think our universe had a beginning, just as most scientists do.

Our universe may have a beginning and end but that doesn't mean time didn't exist before our universe and won't after.

If there's a god you think this is his first or last universe?

Or his only universe?

 

[sealybobo]

Is it rational to believe in God?

Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.

A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.

The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.

A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.

Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.

But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.

If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.

There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”

Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a Big Banger.

But is this Big Banger God?

Why couldn’t it be just another universe? Because Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity says that all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. So there’s no time before the Big Bang.

And even if there is time before the Big Bang, even if there is a multi-verse, that is, many universes with many Big Bangs, as String Theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning. An absolute beginning is what most people mean by God.

Yet, some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a Creator. Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

Do you really believe time has a beginning and end? What did God do before? What will God do after the end of time?

So time is eternal and no need for a god

Time is a variable and one of dozens of dimensions. And yes, I think our universe had a beginning, just as most scientists do.

Just assume God tells time like we do. God existed 20 billion years ago even though the universe is less than 14 billion.

It's amazing I have to use an imaginary creature for you to understand this.

Do you understand space exists beyond our seeable universe? There is no wall and no end. There may be a wall but something lies beyond it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Is it rational to believe in God?

Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.

A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.

The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.

A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.

Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.

But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.

If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.

There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”

Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a Big Banger.

But is this Big Banger God?

Why couldn’t it be just another universe? Because Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity says that all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. So there’s no time before the Big Bang.

And even if there is time before the Big Bang, even if there is a multi-verse, that is, many universes with many Big Bangs, as String Theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning. An absolute beginning is what most people mean by God.

Yet, some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a Creator. Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

Do you really believe time has a beginning and end? What did God do before? What will God do after the end of time?

So time is eternal and no need for a god

Time is a variable and one of dozens of dimensions. And yes, I think our universe had a beginning, just as most scientists do.

Just assume God tells time like we do. God existed 20 billion years ago even though the universe is less than 14 billion.

It's amazing I have to use an imaginary creature for you to understand this.

Do you understand space exists beyond our seeable universe? There is no wall and no end. There may be a wall but something lies beyond it.

And your point is?