Here is the question atheists can't answer...

[MarcATL]

How did we get here?

Damned if I know

Where did God come from?

God is God. He has no beginning and no end. That's why he's God.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Then why can't matter have always been here? Matter cannot be created or destroyed

Where did the matter come from?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

How did we get here?

Damned if I know

Where did God come from?

God is God. He has no beginning and no end. That's why he's God.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Then why can't matter have always been here? Matter cannot be created or destroyed

Where did the matter come from?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I don't know
Where did God come from?

If God "always existed", why can't matter?

 

[turzovka]

I've conceded there is no proof of Gods...now fug off. Good grief

And yet you won't say that it is an opinion that a god actually exists

Sure it is, but it's also faith. Now back to evolution being a theory, I'm weary of your silly deflection and BS

Evolution occurs. It is not a theory, it is a fact. A fact supported by biological, fossil, geologic and DNA evidence

God, is at best a theory. A theory totally unsupported by any evidence

Evolution is a fairy tale for grown ups.

No, I did not coin that, some scientist did who does not even know if there is a God or not, but thinks all your "facts" are total party line crap. IOW, It looks like a duck and kind of feels like a duck --- so it had to have come from a duck. Yeah, sure. Those platypuses sure must have had a wild journey though.

Evolution only could have occurred if all three of the following are true: 1- God did it. 2- He did a great job of hiding all the evidence. 3 - He has since stopped the process altogether.

But this post is about atheism not evolution. So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god. Somehow, some strange way "natural selection" which according to Dawkins has no will, no plan, no real intelligence --- still given that "decided" now is a good time to start hearing. So mindless "natural selection" by chance began the unimaginable process of creating the physiological makeup of what it would take to create hearing. And some of us in the classroom yelled out --- "Yeah, Right!" : 0

Evolution occurs...that is an irrefutable FACT

We know there were no humans a billion years ago....only noncomplex organisms..FACT
We know that over time, life on earth became more and more complex. FACT
There is irrefutable evidence that life evolved over time and became more complex FACT

The only irrefutable evidence is that you have bought in to the party line and you feel so comforted because the majority is with you.

Here is a famous scientist and agnostic who thinks your "facts" are total B.S. He loathes the fact science and scientists have compromised their integrity by calling this stuff "facts." In fact, he ridicules it. But I know, too much to read. Have a nice day.

The Deniable Darwin | Center for Science and Culture

[excerpt]
"The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, "is no longer in dispute among scientists." Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark." << that's funny : )

 

[rdean]

How did we get here?

Oh, that's an easy one. I took a bus.

 

[rightwinger]

And yet you won't say that it is an opinion that a god actually exists

Sure it is, but it's also faith. Now back to evolution being a theory, I'm weary of your silly deflection and BS

Evolution occurs. It is not a theory, it is a fact. A fact supported by biological, fossil, geologic and DNA evidence

God, is at best a theory. A theory totally unsupported by any evidence

Evolution is a fairy tale for grown ups.

No, I did not coin that, some scientist did who does not even know if there is a God or not, but thinks all your "facts" are total party line crap. IOW, It looks like a duck and kind of feels like a duck --- so it had to have come from a duck. Yeah, sure. Those platypuses sure must have had a wild journey though.

Evolution only could have occurred if all three of the following are true: 1- God did it. 2- He did a great job of hiding all the evidence. 3 - He has since stopped the process altogether.

But this post is about atheism not evolution. So in the mind of an atheist (correct me if I am wrong) "natural selection" is their god. Somehow, some strange way "natural selection" which according to Dawkins has no will, no plan, no real intelligence --- still given that "decided" now is a good time to start hearing. So mindless "natural selection" by chance began the unimaginable process of creating the physiological makeup of what it would take to create hearing. And some of us in the classroom yelled out --- "Yeah, Right!" : 0

Evolution occurs...that is an irrefutable FACT

We know there were no humans a billion years ago....only noncomplex organisms..FACT
We know that over time, life on earth became more and more complex. FACT
There is irrefutable evidence that life evolved over time and became more complex FACT

The only irrefutable evidence is that you have bought in to the party line and you feel so comforted because the majority is with you.

Here is a famous scientist and agnostic who thinks your "facts" are total B.S. He loathes the fact science and scientists have compromised their integrity by calling this stuff "facts." In fact, he ridicules it. But I know, too much to read. Have a nice day.

The Deniable Darwin | Center for Science and Culture

[excerpt]
"The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, "is no longer in dispute among scientists." Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark." << that's funny : )

The evidence is that it happened...not how it happened

There were no birds or mammals (or humans) living with the dinosaurs....they came later.....evolved

 

[Montrovant]

It's a mystery. OTOH, I accept the Universe is about 13.8 Billion years old. Do you? God created the Universe and all the physical laws with in it. Do you deny this?

God gave us brains. My thinking is that God expects us to use our brains to better understand the natural universe God created over 13 BILLION years ago. Do you agree with this?

"So what happened here?"

That is funny.

I'd really like to know myself.

It takes just as much faith to believe in the big bang, in fact, moreso than it is to believe in Jesus Christ.

Why does belief in the big bang take more faith than belief in Jesus?

Can you answer the question of what happened on the image?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? Are you asking me to explain the idea of the Big Bang? I asked why you said it takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang than Jesus.

 

[Divine Wind]

It's not measurable if it is impossible to measure because it is not observable.

So, because you can't see people on the other side of the planet, you believe they could live forever?

Physics remains constant regardless if we can see every star or not. Dude, it isn't magic.

That's irrelevant.

You still cannot say how old the oldest stars are.

We’ve found the oldest star in the known universe – and it’s right on our galactic doorstep | ExtremeTech
Astronomers have discovered the oldest living star in the (known) universe — and, remarkably, it’s situated right on our galactic doorstep, just 6,000 light years away, well within the Milky Way. The star, which has the abbreviated name of SM0313, was born 13.6 billion years ago — just 100 or 200 million years after the Big Bang (and a whopping 400 million years before the previous record breaker). It is believed that SM0313 is an elusive Population II star — a star that was formed from the remnants of one of the universe’s very first supernovae. By using SM0313’s spectrographic fingerprint as a baseline, we will hopefully be able to find more ancient stars, eventually allowing us to build up a better picture of what actually happened during (and before?) the Big Bang.

SM0313 (full designation SMSS J031300.36-670839.3) was first spotted by the Australian National University’s Siding Spring Observatory’s SkyMapper Telescope, which is in the process of mapping out a billion stars, galaxies, and asteroids in the southern sky. The Magellan Telescopes in Chile then followed up with some high-resolution imagery. As the astronomers took a closer look at the images, they noticed something rather odd: SM0313 contains almost no iron — less than one ten millionth of the iron found in our local Sun, in fact. (Read: 9 gigapixels, 84 million stars: Peer into the world’s most detailed photo of the Milky Way.)


As you may know, our current understanding of the formation of the universe (i.e. galaxies, stars, planets) is that supernovae play a very central role. Basically, the theory is that the Big Bang produced vast amounts of hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium. All of the matter in the universe, and all of the matter that will ever be in the universe, is derived from that initial pool of three elements. After a few thousand years, as the universe started to cool, dense regions of hydrogen started to coalesce under gravity — and in some cases, if they became dense enough, a fusion reaction would begin. Thus, the the universe’s first stars were born. These early stars fused hydrogen into helium — but more importantly, when they went supernova, they produced the first instances of carbon, and traces of heavier elements like iron. Slowly but surely, through repeated cycles of star formation and supernovae, the universe started to fill up with heavier elements, eventually resulting in the formation of metal-rich stars and planets like our Sun and Earth. (Read: Supernova explodes nearby in the Cigar Galaxy, but don’t worry, we’re safe.)

SM0313, however, is almost pure hydrogen and helium, with almost no heavy elements at all. This indicates that it’s a Population II star — a star that was formed very early in in the universe’s history, from the remnants of the very first stars (so-called Population III stars, which are hypothetical and thought to be long extinct). SM0313 contains some carbon, and light metals like lithium, magnesium, and calcium, but that’s it. This is surprising to astronomers, because they thought that first-generation supernovae produced a lot of iron. “This indicates the primordial star’s supernova explosion was of surprisingly low energy. Although sufficient to disintegrate the primordial star, almost all of the heavy elements, such as iron, were consumed by a black hole that formed at the heart of the explosion,” said Stefan Keller, operational scientist of the SkyMapper Telescope. [Research paper: doi:10.1038/nature12990 – “A single low-energy, iron-poor supernova as the source of metals in the star SMSS J031300.36−670839.3”]

By fingerprinting SM0313’s spectrographic signature (its elemental composition), we should be able to find more similar stars in the universe — and thus paint a more accurate picture of what the universe was like, soon after the Big Bang. (Read: Hubble captures photo that looks back 13.2 billion years to the creation of the universe.)




How to find SM0313, the oldest star in the sky [Image credit: National Geographic]

While surprising astronomical finds are always nice, it’s even more striking when that discovery is in your own backyard. SM0313 is located just 6,000 light years away from Earth, in the southern constellation of Dorado. If you had a large’ish telescope, you could see it in the night sky yourself. We’re not entirely sure how this star — aged at 13.6 billion years — ended up in the Milky Way (which is roughly 13.2 billion years old). One theory, according to Keller, is that SM0313 was formed in an “isolated gas blob,” which was later absorbed by our rapidly expanding Milky Way.

 

[turzovka]

The evidence is that it happened...not how it happened

That what happened? That there is life? Yes, sure, evidence for that.

Evidence that life evolved from some micro-organism to one day turn into a screaming eagle? No.

You are not going to win this argument with all of the speculations and inferences and B.S. drawings and flimsy fossil evidence your beloved science body so desperately wants to sell. Go and ahead and laugh if you find us obtuse, we become amused as well.

And are you also an atheist or agnostic? I really do not have time to pursue that line of thought, but, seriously? You might be one of those who insists there is evidence that we evolved from primitive life forms, and yet, also claim there is no empirical evidence for God? Can anything be more strange?

It is called the pride of man. Man is so full of himself he wants to think he is God or in control. Kind of embarrassing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

By the way, I just love this quote or excerpt from a book by Jonathan Swift. It's quite to the point.

Jonathan Swift (17th century English satirist) speaking of the achievements of science and it reflection upon its own laurels --- "And he, whose fortunes and dispositions have placed him in a convenient station to enjoy the fruits of this noble art; he that can with Epicurus content his ideas with the films and images that fly off upon his senses from the superficies of things; such a man truly wise, creams off nature, leavving the sour and the dregs for philosophy and reason to lap up. This is the sublime and refined point of felicity, called the possession of being well deceived; the serene peaceful state of being a fool among knaves.

What he is saying is that science is in the shallows while the answers to the purpose of life and what happens after death and the inexplicable manifestations that scream out 'supernatural' --- all that is left for philosophy and reason to deal with . Theology is in the deep waters giving purpose and evidence for that purpose. By comparison, science's value is nothing more than "a fool among knaves."

 

[rightwinger]

The evidence is that it happened...not how it happened

That what happened? That there is life? Yes, sure, evidence for that.

Evidence that life evolved from some micro-organism to one day turn into a screaming eagle? No.

You are not going to win this argument with all of the speculations and inferences and B.S. drawings and flimsy fossil evidence your beloved science body so desperately wants to sell. Go and ahead and laugh, we are laughing, too.

And are you also an atheist or agnostic? I really do not have time to pursue that line of thought, but, seriously? You might be one of those who insists there is evidence that we evolved from primitive life forms, and yet, also claim there is no empirical evidence for God? Can anything be more strange?

It is called the pride of man. Man is so full of himself he want to think he is God or in control. Kind of embarrassing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

By the way, I just love this quote or excerpt from a book by Jonathan Swift. It's quite to the point.

Jonathan Swift (17th century English satirist) speaking of the achievements of science and it reflection upon its own laurels --- "And he, whose fortunes and dispositions have placed him in a convenient station to enjoy the fruits of this noble art; he that can with Epicurus content his ideas with the films and images that fly off upon his senses from the superficies of things; such a man truly wise, creams off nature, leavving the sour and the dregs for philosophy and reason to lap up. This is the sublime and refined point of felicity, called the possession of being well deceived; the serene peaceful state of being a fool among knaves.

What he is saying is that science is in the shallows while the answers to the purpose of life and what happens after death and the inexplicable manifestations that scream out 'supernatural' --- all that is left for philosophy and reason to deal with . Theology is in the deep waters giving purpose and evidence for that purpose. By comparison, science's value is nothing more than "a fool among knaves."

There were no screaming eagles a billion years ago FACT

They evolved over time

 

[Penelope]

I believe in the Big Bang Theory, AND I believe in Jesus Christ.

But the Big Bang Theory leaves one basic question unanswered.

HOW did the Big Bang happen?

No one knows anything. We all wonder the same.

 

[Vastator]

The difference between the cultists, and the scientists...
The scientists are fully aware that they don't have all the answers, and subsequently they actively apply themselves to learning, study, and understanding that which they don't know.
The cultists on the other hand; when faced with a question for which they have no answer, stop dead in thier tracks, abandon pursuit of understanding, and foolishly proclaim "the magic sky genie did it."

 

[sealybobo]

You make up the story and tell it

I didn't make up the story, even Eisenstein knew their was a God, just not a personal one..

You should read Einstein's personal biography this long 3 day weekend..it's like 600 pages long..

A fascinating book read it around 2009

A lot of smart theists that doesn't prove anything, just like the fact athiests are very intelligent.

Einstein believed there was a God but he didn't prove it.

I understand the logic behind the idea there must be a creator but there really doesn't have to be one.

And Einstein isn't celebrated for his religious beliefs

If there is no creator, how did the universe get here?

Who knows? We may never answer that question. I'm not going to accept superstitious stories from our ignorant ancient ancestors

So you go by faith, in what mankind has so-called figured out thus far. Correct *

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Yes. I don't "believe" anything. We either know something or we don't. Do I BELIEVE there is other life out there? Yes I do. But I don't have faith there is. At least not enough to base my entire existence on it.

 

[Syriusly]

How did we get here?

I drove to work today in my car.

Nailed it.

 

[Vastator]

How did we get here?

I drove to work today in my car.

Nailed it.

Thread kill!!!!

 

[Syriusly]

I believe in the Big Bang Theory, AND I believe in Jesus Christ.

But the Big Bang Theory leaves one basic question unanswered.

HOW did the Big Bang happen?

Of course God leaves one basic question unanswered- well more than one- but the same one.

How did God happen?

Christians don't need to know how God happened to believe in him.
I don't know that the Big Bang happened- I think it is an interesting theory- but ultimately unrelated to my lack of belief in fairy tales.

I just don't believe in a god. I don't need to know how the universe began to not believe in any of the thousands of gods on earth. No more than I 'need to know' where the water in a river originated to know that the water is in the river.

 

[MarcATL]

I believe in the Big Bang Theory, AND I believe in Jesus Christ.

But the Big Bang Theory leaves one basic question unanswered.

HOW did the Big Bang happen?

Of course God leaves one basic question unanswered- well more than one- but the same one.

How did God happen?

Christians don't need to know how God happened to believe in him.
I don't know that the Big Bang happened- I think it is an interesting theory- but ultimately unrelated to my lack of belief in fairy tales.

I just don't believe in a god. I don't need to know how the universe began to not believe in any of the thousands of gods on earth. No more than I 'need to know' where the water in a river originated to know that the water is in the river.

God is God. He's our Creator. Do you have to explain yourself to ants?

 

[Syriusly]

I believe in the Big Bang Theory, AND I believe in Jesus Christ.

But the Big Bang Theory leaves one basic question unanswered.

HOW did the Big Bang happen?

Of course God leaves one basic question unanswered- well more than one- but the same one.

How did God happen?

Christians don't need to know how God happened to believe in him.
I don't know that the Big Bang happened- I think it is an interesting theory- but ultimately unrelated to my lack of belief in fairy tales.

I just don't believe in a god. I don't need to know how the universe began to not believe in any of the thousands of gods on earth. No more than I 'need to know' where the water in a river originated to know that the water is in the river.

God is God. He's our Creator. Do you have to explain yourself to ants?

Do ants believe in God or gods?

Does God demand that ants believe in him- or worship him? LOL

And which 'god'? The god of Abraham? The gods of Mount Olympus? Coyote? Thor? Some bizarre triumverite that includes Jesus?

 

[MarcATL]

Do ants believe in God or gods?

Does God demand that ants believe in him- or worship him? LOL

And which 'god'? The god of Abraham? The gods of Mount Olympus? Coyote? Thor? Some bizarre triumverite that includes Jesus?

Do you demand that your children listen and respect you? Or do you let them do whatever they please from the time they are born? Do you set boundaries for your children, or is it a free-for-all whatever goes thing from the time they are born?

 

[rightwinger]

Do ants believe in God or gods?

Does God demand that ants believe in him- or worship him? LOL

And which 'god'? The god of Abraham? The gods of Mount Olympus? Coyote? Thor? Some bizarre triumverite that includes Jesus?

Do you demand that your children listen and respect you? Or do you let them do whatever they please from the time they are born? Do you set boundaries for your children, or is it a free-for-all whatever goes thing from the time they are born?

I do not demand that my children set aside one day a week to worship me

 

[sealybobo]

Do ants believe in God or gods?

Does God demand that ants believe in him- or worship him? LOL

And which 'god'? The god of Abraham? The gods of Mount Olympus? Coyote? Thor? Some bizarre triumverite that includes Jesus?

Do you demand that your children listen and respect you? Or do you let them do whatever they please from the time they are born? Do you set boundaries for your children, or is it a free-for-all whatever goes thing from the time they are born?

I demand my kids listen and respect me. So what?

You do realize not everything your parents tell you is correct, right? So if they tell you to worship something you know doesn't exist, are you doing something wrong by not listening or respecting their faith? Once you turn into an adult you are free to think for yourself.