Science Proves the Bible Again

[K9Buck]

It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.

Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.

A creator.

 

[bripat9643]

The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.

Not really. The universe may very well be teeming with life. All of it still needs a creator.

You mean, you need a creator. Try to distinguish between your own fetishes and the rest of reality.

Feel free to show me something in the universe that is capable of causing itself to come into existence.

God?

 

[bripat9643]

You offer no real observable proof.

Of accepted scientific theories, which only achieved that status...by being supported by mountains of evidence....? Not only have I presented evidence, i have even take the time to spoonfeed you basic facts that a child learns in elementary school.

You're welcome.

Good grief LittleNipper, you're almost as bad as lying-ass Bond. How can you say such incredibly stupid things?

Words are cheap and the evidence has been demonstrated to go both ways. Stupidity is revealed with one's ultimate destiny.Time will tell.

All the evidence goes one way: against a creator.

 

[bripat9643]

The discovery of life elsewhere in our solar system or elsewhere in our galaxy would be utterly devastating to the religious articles as “creation” is uniquely an earthly event.

Not really. The universe may very well be teeming with life. All of it still needs a creator.

You mean, you need a creator. Try to distinguish between your own fetishes and the rest of reality.

Feel free to show me something in the universe that is capable of causing itself to come into existence.

Sure, just as soon as you show me a magical sky daddy creating something.

And you are making the same error you religious folks always make. youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.

The Universe obviously exists and so does life. Scientists have not been able to replicate anything of the sort. So the burden of proof lies with those who say that everything is the result of a natural occurrence...

Sorry, but those who claim some gaseous vertebrate with a penis deserves all the credit have the burden of proof.

 

[bripat9643]

The consensus of what the evidence shows is zero evidence for a creator.

Existence is the evidence for a creator, along with the universe and our lives.

Wrong.

 

[cnm]

It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.

Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.

A creator.

Yes, your invention.

 

[bripat9643]

And you are making the same error you religious folks always make. youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.

It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe. Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence. The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.

If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a creator. If you deny that conclusion, then you deny that everything must have a creator.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The pride of the 20th century

And the -5th: Socrates - Wikipedia

 

[K9Buck]

And you are making the same error you religious folks always make. youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.

It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe. Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence. The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.

If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a creator. If you deny that conclusion, then you deny that everything must have a creator.

What was the first uncaused cause?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a creator.

But then he says everything but the creator needs a creator. And then some vague reference to Aquinas will follow.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What was the first uncaused cause?

Correct answer: I don't know. I don't know if there even was a first uncaused cause.

 

[bripat9643]

And you are making the same error you religious folks always make. youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.

It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe. Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence. The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.

If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a creator. If you deny that conclusion, then you deny that everything must have a creator.

What was the first uncaused cause?

What caused God?

 

[K9Buck]

It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.

Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.

A creator.

Yes, your invention.

Well, if there is no creator, then we're forced to believe that existence came about on its own, which is impossible. Like I said, it doesn't take an astrophysicist.

 

[K9Buck]

And you are making the same error you religious folks always make. youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.

It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe. Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence. The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.

If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a creator. If you deny that conclusion, then you deny that everything must have a creator.

What was the first uncaused cause?

What caused God?

You don't want to answer my question?

 

[bripat9643]

It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.

Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.

A creator.

Yes, your invention.

Well, if there is no creator, then we're forced to believe that existence came about on its own, which is impossible. Like I said, it doesn't take an astrophysicist.

If it's impossible, then where did God come from?

 

[bripat9643]

And you are making the same error you religious folks always make. youare the only one claiming with any certainty to know how everything came into existence. The burden of proof lies with you.

It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe. Nothing in this universe can cause itself to come into existence. The PREPONDERANCE of the logic points to a creator, you're just too fucking stupid to make the connection.

If everything must have a creator, then the creator must also have a creator. If you deny that conclusion, then you deny that everything must have a creator.

What was the first uncaused cause?

What caused God?

You don't want to answer my question?

I agree with the answer Fort Fun Indiana gave you.

 

[K9Buck]

What was the first uncaused cause?

Correct answer: I don't know. I don't know if there even was a first uncaused cause.

We know that the universe had a beginning. What caused it to come into existence?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, if there is no creator, then we're forced to believe that existence came about on its own, which is impossible.

Which is just another restatement of your dubious premise. Notice this is all you are left with...your "Alamo"...to stomp your feet and insist it is impossible...

 

[K9Buck]

It's not necessary for one to be an astrophysicist to come to the logical conclusion that a power outside of our universe had to have created said universe.

Absolutely. One merely has to invent an entity.

A creator.

Yes, your invention.

Well, if there is no creator, then we're forced to believe that existence came about on its own, which is impossible. Like I said, it doesn't take an astrophysicist.

If it's impossible, then where did God come from?

Do we agree that there had to be something, or someone, that has always existed and who didn't need another to cause it to exist?

 

[cnm]

Like I said, it doesn't take an astrophysicist.

No, just one of weak logic.