If God doesn't exist...

[Damaged Eagle]

I don't think you quite understand. Just because we do not have an explanation right now does not mean there isn't one, and that does not mean you can just jump to another unsupported conclusion. Argument from ignorance.

Funny! I've been listening to a lot of that last part from you for a few pages now.

You haven't shown anything.

I see... So the whole universe is nothing now.

Why hasn't the universe and yourself vanished then?

At first I think you were fucking with me with your misinterpretations of the teapot but I'm beginning to suspect you're serious. The teapot is not supposed to be a real assertion.

You are mistaken.... I've never stopped fucking with you.

Now don't worry we'll have tea shortly.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Because scientist are unclear of how they apply to a pre-big bang existence.

That's convenient... So we're all supposed to believe that some magical power changed the laws of physics all because you have no plausible explanation for the event. Aren't you the skeptic who doesn't believe in God, unicorns, fairies, and such?

I'm thinkin' it'd be easier to just say a miracle occurred.

Wait!!!!! Didn't I say that in the opening post of this thread?

It must be time for tea!

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Epitah]

Funny! I've been listening to a lot of that last part from you for a few pages now.

The Big Bang is supported. What you don't seem to get is that we don't need to know the exact cause to know something happened, you think that just because we don't have a specific explanation means the existence of the result is completely invalidated.

I see... So the whole universe is nothing now.

Why hasn't the universe and yourself vanished then?

Allow me to clarify.

You haven't shown me any information of value.

That's convenient... So we're all supposed to believe that some magical power changed the laws of physics all because you have no plausible explanation for the event. Aren't you the skeptic who doesn't believe in God, unicorns, fairies, and such?

I'm thinkin' it'd be easier to just say a miracle occurred.

I don't see a reason to be skeptical of the Big Bang itself. I do however see a reason to be skeptical of anyone asserting any given cause without supporting it.

Have you just admitted you're just naturally drawn to explanation that sounds the simplest and easiest to digest to you instead of just admitting you don't know

 

[PoliticalChic]

What claim is being made?

The claim I'm talking about is there is a god/a creator. and as it applies to this forum, the monotheistic god of the bible.

Do you doubt the existence of the universe?

Do you have an explanation for its origin?

Do you subscribe to either of these:
a. it was always here......red shift notwithstanding

b. the universe was created out of nothing....as Krauss states....
"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing,"
by Lawrence M. Krauss Richard Dawkins (Afterword)

"Quantum cosmology is a branch of mathematical metaphysics that provides no cause for the emergence of the universe, the ‘how,’ nor reason thereof, the ‘why.’ If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities." David Berlinski

“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.


So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."

Why?

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas

To anyone making a claim it requires them to back it up. You can claim anything but in order for it to be taken seriously you have to back it up. It's called the burden of proof. That quote is just used by theists to make them believe they don't have to justify anything they believe.

What claim is being made?

.

What claim is being made?

To one without faith, no explanation is possible.


that one.

.

Please explain why you doubt the obvious truth therein.

 

[Dr Grump]

So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...

 

[PoliticalChic]

So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...

"And where did God come from?"

In order for you to be accepted as an adult,it is incumbent upon you to use words that you understand, and can define.

Although you correctly capitalized 'God,'...you clearly have no understanding of the proper usage of the term.

See if this helps.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

 

[Dr Grump]

So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...

"And where did God come from?"

In order for you to be accepted as an adult,it is incumbent upon you to use words that you understand, and can define.

Although you correctly capitalized 'God,'...you clearly have no understanding of the proper usage of the term.

See if this helps.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

Another cop out about god...

 

[PoliticalChic]

So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...

"And where did God come from?"

In order for you to be accepted as an adult,it is incumbent upon you to use words that you understand, and can define.

Although you correctly capitalized 'God,'...you clearly have no understanding of the proper usage of the term.

See if this helps.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

Another cop out about god...

I seem to have embarrassed you in pointing out that you correctly capitalized "God" earlier.

Now you feel the need to assure your Liberal coterie that it was........what....accidental?

You are pointing me toward producing an OP which will document why it is essential to the nature of communism.....and it's most contemporary spin-off, Modern Liberalism, to disdain religion and morality.

In that, you may have served a higher purpose than your attempt to sneer at the Creator.


BTW....correct usage of "God" is based on the eternal existence of same.
Don't make that mistake again, ....m'kay?

 

[Dr Grump]

So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...

"And where did God come from?"

In order for you to be accepted as an adult,it is incumbent upon you to use words that you understand, and can define.

Although you correctly capitalized 'God,'...you clearly have no understanding of the proper usage of the term.

See if this helps.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

Another cop out about god...

I seem to have embarrassed you in pointing out that you correctly capitalized "God" earlier.

Now you feel the need to assure your Liberal coterie that it was........what....accidental?

You are pointing me toward producing an OP which will document why it is essential to the nature of communism.....and it's most contemporary spin-off, Modern Liberalism, to disdain religion and morality.

In that, you may have served a higher purpose than your attempt to sneer at the Creator.


BTW....correct usage of "God" is based on the eternal existence of same.
Don't make that mistake again, ....m'kay?

Only a complete and utter whack job would somehow try and put a belief in a god and communism in the same spiel...good grief woman, you're deranged....

 

[Epitah]

Do you have an explanation for its origin?

The Big Bang theory.

So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

No it doesn't. You're taking a line from a book and trying to apply it to real life, but that doesn't work.

He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

This has the exact same issue as the argument above. You present a somewhat valid argument but then just take a quote from a book with no credibility and try to apply it to real life. I can easily say Marvel comics says the evil Galactus destroys planets and therefore that's why stars die in real life, but that doesn't make it true. you are missing a very big step in logic

I seem to have embarrassed you in pointing out that you correctly capitalized "God" earlier.

Now you feel the need to assure your Liberal coterie that it was........what....accidental?

You are pointing me toward producing an OP which will document why it is essential to the nature of communism.....and it's most contemporary spin-off, Modern Liberalism, to disdain religion and morality.

In that, you may have served a higher purpose than your attempt to sneer at the Creator.


BTW....correct usage of "God" is based on the eternal existence of same.
Don't make that mistake again, ....m'kay?

stop obsessing over capitalization and make a real argument, and no ranting about the unrelated topic of liberals supporting communism and lack of morals is not a real argument

 

[BreezeWood]

"It's on the person that actually believes to prove it is real."

Why?

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”―Thomas Aquinas

To anyone making a claim it requires them to back it up. You can claim anything but in order for it to be taken seriously you have to back it up. It's called the burden of proof. That quote is just used by theists to make them believe they don't have to justify anything they believe.

What claim is being made?

.

What claim is being made?

To one without faith, no explanation is possible.


that one.

.

Please explain why you doubt the obvious truth therein.

.

Please explain why you doubt the obvious truth therein.

To one without faith, no explanation is possible.

there simply is not a correlation between the two ...


To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary.

the same as faith is not an end's but a means and itself is without substance an explanation would be necessary to facilitate.


faith in the Almighty will not accomplish Admission to the Everlasting for the mortal Spirit - the means without the result, explanation does not accomplished the endeavor ... that's why christians made up their religion and others are simply fools.

.

 

[james bond]

I don't see a reason to be skeptical of the Big Bang itself. I do however see a reason to be skeptical of anyone asserting any given cause without supporting it.

Have you just admitted you're just naturally drawn to explanation that sounds the simplest and easiest to digest to you instead of just admitting you don't know

Simplest not in that sense. We're trying to explain something complex rather than something from "invisible" particles. Parsimony is best like Occam's razor.

Before BBT, it was the eternal universe or Steady State Theory which became pseudoscience. Today, with BBT considered the best explanation, science backs Genesis in the Bible more. Just take out the bang and replace it with the creator.

 

[Epitah]

Before BBT, it was the eternal universe or Steady State Theory which became pseudoscience. Today, with BBT considered the best explanation, science backs Genesis in the Bible more. Just take out the bang and replace it with the creator.

Because scientific models change. What does that have to do with anything?

You saying science backs up the Bible is the pseudoscience. The Bible says the universe and the earth were created 6 days which obviously isn't true. Scientific data contradicts information given in the Bible

Still haven't given that scientific explanation for the talking serpent, too as far as I know.

 

[james bond]

Simplest not in that sense. We're trying to explain something complex rather than something from "invisible" particles. Parsimony is best like Occam's razor.

Before BBT, it was the eternal universe or Steady State Theory which became pseudoscience. Today, with BBT considered the best explanation, science backs Genesis in the Bible more. Just take out the bang and replace it with the creator.

Because scientific models change. What does that have to do with anything?

You saying science backs up the Bible is the pseudoscience. The Bible says the universe and the earth were created 6 days which obviously isn't true. Scientific data contradicts information given in the Bible

Still haven't given that scientific explanation for the talking serpent, too as far as I know.

I gave that explanation already. The devil talked through the serpent. Animals can't talk ha ha. You haven't answered the question of how the universe came from "invisible" particles.

Scientific theories become pseudoscience when something better replaces them. Older people probably were led to believe in an eternal universe. Yet, today that has changed more to what the Bible said centuries ago. That's significant and more evidence for God or a creator. BBT violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so The Creator Theory holds more significance. Science won't accept The God Theory or a supernatural explanation.

Again, you are wrong because that isn't the definition of pseudoscience. The Bible is backed up by scientific methods even though it isn't a science book.

 

[Epitah]

I gave that explanation already. The devil talked through the serpent. Animals can't talk ha ha. You haven't answered the question of how the universe came from "invisible" particles.

Do you seriously think that's a scientific explanation? I don't even know what invisible particles are or what they have to do with the Big Bang.

also you made like 3 claims you can't support in that one sentence and the word serpent is very vague, and that STILL isn't a scientific explanation.
-The Devil
-The Devil can posses animals and has done so
-Possessing animals can make them talk despite them having no vocal chords to speak language on the level of human beings

Scientific theories become pseudoscience when something better replaces them. Older people probably were led to believe in an eternal universe. Yet, today that has changed more to what the Bible said centuries ago. That's significant and more evidence for God or a creator. BBT violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so The Creator Theory holds more significance. Science won't accept The God Theory or a supernatural explanation.

Just because something in real life happens to line up with a book doesn't mean the book is real or has credibility. A creator isn't a theory, it's a faulty hypothesis at best.

 

[Epitah]

And no, the Big Bang doesn't violate the second law of therodynamics. even if it did and the big bang was somehow false then that still doesn't make the creator hypothesis hold any more water

 

[PoliticalChic]

So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...

"And where did God come from?"

In order for you to be accepted as an adult,it is incumbent upon you to use words that you understand, and can define.

Although you correctly capitalized 'God,'...you clearly have no understanding of the proper usage of the term.

See if this helps.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” Jürgen Braungardt - Psychotherapy
   1. He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

Another cop out about god...

I seem to have embarrassed you in pointing out that you correctly capitalized "God" earlier.

Now you feel the need to assure your Liberal coterie that it was........what....accidental?

You are pointing me toward producing an OP which will document why it is essential to the nature of communism.....and it's most contemporary spin-off, Modern Liberalism, to disdain religion and morality.

In that, you may have served a higher purpose than your attempt to sneer at the Creator.


BTW....correct usage of "God" is based on the eternal existence of same.
Don't make that mistake again, ....m'kay?

Only a complete and utter whack job would somehow try and put a belief in a god and communism in the same spiel...good grief woman, you're deranged....

I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.


Atheism is the a priori requirement of communism, Liberalism, and all of Leftism.
To be a secularist....as you are, you must disregard, disparage, and mock religion.

"There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor." The Schwarz Report | Essays



Can you imagine how you would look down on what you've become, if you had an actual education??

 

[Epitah]

I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.


Atheism is the a priori requirement of communism, Liberalism, and all of Leftism.
To be a secularist....as you are, you must disregard, disparage, and mock religion.

"There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor." The Schwarz Report | Essays



Can you imagine how you would look down on what you've become, if you had an actual education??

I don't even know what this has to do with the original argument aside from you just wanting to shit on liberalism

your quote there also reveals an interesting tidbit, do you feel icky at the idea of a lack of objective moral standards?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

And where did God come from? So it's hard to believe a scientific explanation such as the Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with a deity. Yet you can believe that this deity was always there? Phooey...

Do you have an explanation for its origin?

The Big Bang theory.

So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

No it doesn't. You're taking a line from a book and trying to apply it to real life, but that doesn't work.

He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

This has the exact same issue as the argument above. You present a somewhat valid argument but then just take a quote from a book with no credibility and try to apply it to real life. I can easily say Marvel comics says the evil Galactus destroys planets and therefore that's why stars die in real life, but that doesn't make it true. you are missing a very big step in logic

I seem to have embarrassed you in pointing out that you correctly capitalized "God" earlier.

Now you feel the need to assure your Liberal coterie that it was........what....accidental?

You are pointing me toward producing an OP which will document why it is essential to the nature of communism.....and it's most contemporary spin-off, Modern Liberalism, to disdain religion and morality.

In that, you may have served a higher purpose than your attempt to sneer at the Creator.


BTW....correct usage of "God" is based on the eternal existence of same.
Don't make that mistake again, ....m'kay?

stop obsessing over capitalization and make a real argument, and no ranting about the unrelated topic of liberals supporting communism and lack of morals is not a real argument

And the source of the material for that "big bang'?

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can you come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?


Of course you can't.

....the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
Atheistic 'scientists' advance total nonsense....and in an attempt to obviate a belief in God, you pretend to accept it.


So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?

 

[Epitah]

And the source of the material for that "big bang'?

Krauss has said "we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness..."
Clearly an attempt to avoid the central question of where did the universe come from. Where are the quantum rules that imply a universe that must appear out of the void? Can you come up with a few examples where something has come from nothing?


Of course you can't.

....the ancient Greek, Parmenides, was correct: nihil fit ex nihilo... "out of nothing, nothing [be]comes."


The fake science dunces are willing to accept anything...even things that obviate all of real science.
Atheistic 'scientists' advance total nonsense....and in an attempt to obviate a belief in God, you pretend to accept it.


So....I breathlessly await your answer to this query: what is the source of the material for that "big bang'?

We don't know what caused the big bang and we may never know, but that's a better answer than coming up with any you want to fill that gap. Nobody's saying it came out of "the void"

when studying science, atheist scientists tend to leave ideas of a god out of it because they're completely irrelevant and not helpful at all