This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[Blues Man]

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

Hillary is pro-abortion. You fools are claiming that we should have voted for an abortionist over Trump.

Pro-abortion is not what you accused. You are moving the goalpost.

You're a liar till the end. You serve Satan, the father of the lie.

your god created Satan.

 

[K9Buck]

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

Hillary is pro-abortion. You fools are claiming that we should have voted for an abortionist over Trump.

Pro-abortion is not what you accused. You are moving the goalpost.

You're a liar till the end. You serve Satan, the father of the lie.

your god created Satan.

God also created Jesus. You reject Jesus, just as your spiritual father demands.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I think the point here is that if there were a Big Bang, and everything was just energy and not atoms, at what point did atoms constitute "life"? And what is "life"? Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?

Covering lots of ground here, but first in my quick opinion, the Big Bang happening is no longer questionable. The CMB provides overwhelming evidence, though I still find some of the reported conclusions laughable. However, what we consider "life" could be of little logical concern until conditions allowed for any to exist here. What is "life"? For us it's clearly more than just a collection of atoms. From Wikipedia:

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity. Life on Earth first appeared as early as 4.28 billion years ago, soon after ocean formation 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][3][4] The earliest known life forms are microfossils of bacteria.[5][6] Life on Earth is probably descended from an RNA world,[7] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[8][9] The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.

So "not long after the formation of the Earth" but way, way, long after the Big Bang. So long that deliberately conflating the two does seem pretty silly. The explosion marking the beginning of the universe we know having no apparent connection to "life" other than:

1. Eventually providing a place where we might first notice its existence
2. That place eventually becoming capable of supporting "life"

Required temperature range, pressure, chemicals, humidity, etc. "Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?"

Humans are certainly self-aware along with some other animals. Dunno whether any computers think they're alive. I see no reason why they couldn't eventually be programmed to think so and to decide our fate in a microsecond.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think the point here is that if there were a Big Bang, and everything was just energy and not atoms, at what point did atoms constitute "life"? And what is "life"? Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?

Covering lots of ground here, but first in my quick opinion, the Big Bang happening is no longer questionable. The CMB provides overwhelming evidence, though I still find some of the reported conclusions laughable. However, what we consider "life" could be of little logical concern until conditions allowed for any to exist here. What is "life"? For us it's clearly more than just a collection of atoms. From Wikipedia:

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity. Life on Earth first appeared as early as 4.28 billion years ago, soon after ocean formation 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][3][4] The earliest known life forms are microfossils of bacteria.[5][6] Life on Earth is probably descended from an RNA world,[7] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[8][9] The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.

So "not long after the formation of the Earth" but way, way, long after the Big Bang. So long that deliberately conflating the two does seem pretty silly. The explosion marking the beginning of the universe we know having no apparent connection to "life" other than:

1. Eventually providing a place where we might first notice its existence
2. That place eventually becoming capable of supporting "life"

Required temperature range, pressure, chemicals, humidity, etc. "Are we really "alive" or just we think we are because we've been programmed like that? Does a computer think it's "alive"?"

Humans are certainly self-aware along with some other animals. Dunno whether any computers think they're alive. I see no reason why they couldn't eventually be programmed to think so and to decide our fate in a microsecond.

The thing with science is that everything is questionable.

Yes, some things are, more or less, set in stone, but the Big Bang is too difficult for us to really understand what happened. Scientists like to talk about it as if it's set in stone, but in the future our view might change.

The James Web telescope might change things, for one.

Humans at least think they're self aware. Whether we are is another matter. The more I look into it, the less I think we are. It is a difficult one, but often I feel like I'm just suffering, or enjoying, the inevitable.

 

[Blues Man]

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

Hillary is pro-abortion. You fools are claiming that we should have voted for an abortionist over Trump.

Pro-abortion is not what you accused. You are moving the goalpost.

You're a liar till the end. You serve Satan, the father of the lie.

your god created Satan.

God also created Jesus. You reject Jesus, just as your spiritual father demands.

I don't reject any gods I just don't worship them either.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The thing with science is that everything is questionable.

There's really no "thing with science." Stating that "everything is questionable" is just recognizing and acknowledging that it is.. period. But what "we" do "know" best is what has achieved the greatest consensus after being tested the longest, most carefully, repeatedly, and independently, and peer reviewed, i.e. most rigorously subjected to scientific method. What "we know" otherwise is worth shit by comparison. What "we know" otherwise doesn't merit even a stale cup of coffee.

Yes, some things are, more or less, set in stone, but the Big Bang is too difficult for us to really understand what happened. Scientists like to talk about it as if it's set in stone, but in the future our view might change.

No, many details will no doubt be clarified, but the basic idea is correct. Unless you have something more scientifically compelling to offer? In which case, shit or get off the pot.

The James Web telescope might change things, for one.

Looks very cool and will doubtless help work some things out along the fringes.

Humans at least think they're self aware. Whether we are is another matter. The more I look into it, the less I think we are. It is a difficult one, but often I feel like I'm just suffering, or enjoying, the inevitable.

You recognize this rather unique, sentient human as being "you" while looking in the mirror. Others as well. That's all being "self-aware" really means. Be glad. Not all people are capable of even that much.

 

[ding]

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

Arguing we can't know anything because we don't know everything and what we do know is subject to change, is a fools game. A person who believed that would have to go around knowing next to nothing. But even worse... his actions would belie his own belief thus making him a hypocrite.

Show me a man who argues we can't accept science for what he opposes and I will show you a man who argues we MUST accept science for what he supports.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

Hillary is pro-abortion. You fools are claiming that we should have voted for an abortionist over Trump.

Pro-abortion is not what you accused. You are moving the goalpost.

You're a liar till the end. You serve Satan, the father of the lie.

Well now, if God were truly omnipotent he'd relieve his children of Satan. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent, and hence not a god at all. Feel free to explain that God cannot accomplish free will without evil and choices. Again, this means he is not all powerful, and you know where that leads.

 

[ding]

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

Hillary is pro-abortion. You fools are claiming that we should have voted for an abortionist over Trump.

Pro-abortion is not what you accused. You are moving the goalpost.

You're a liar till the end. You serve Satan, the father of the lie.

Well now, if God were truly omnipotent he'd relieve his children of Satan. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent, and hence not a god at all. Feel free to explain that God cannot accomplish free will without evil and choices. Again, this means he is not all powerful, and you know where that leads.

MLK responds...

"...We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. This applies to the power of a gun, or a drug, or an argument, or even a sermon! Does it achieve its end? Does it fulfill its purpose?

We must realize that God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. We can see this clearly in human illustrations. My purpose in doing a crossword puzzle is not to fill in certain words. I could fill them in easily by waiting for tomorrow morning's paper. Filling them in without the answers is harder but much more satisfying, for it calls out resourcefulness, ingenuity, and discipline which by the easier way would find no self expression.

 

[ding]

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

Hillary is pro-abortion. You fools are claiming that we should have voted for an abortionist over Trump.

Pro-abortion is not what you accused. You are moving the goalpost.

You're a liar till the end. You serve Satan, the father of the lie.

Well now, if God were truly omnipotent he'd relieve his children of Satan. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent, and hence not a god at all. Feel free to explain that God cannot accomplish free will without evil and choices. Again, this means he is not all powerful, and you know where that leads.

Now let's see what Maimonides has to say...

[MEN frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things, that just isn't the case. He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without being subject to any external influence, or any of the accidents of matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, viz., to be at the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never subject to change there could be no generation: there would be one single being, but no individuals forming a species. It would be in vain to expect to see living beings formed of the blood of menstruous women and the semen virile, who will not die, will never feel pain, or will move perpetually, or will shine like the sun. Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the semen is the species of man, for as far as man's nature is known, he is living, reasonable, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil. You will, nevertheless, find that the evils of the above kind which befall man are very few and rare.

It must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good. God is perfect goodness, and that all that comes from Him is absolutely good. Consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. ALL the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

Hmm, no, it may not have been nothing. The universe may just always have been. And selection results in things that give the illusion of design, like spheroids floating in outer space, or hexagonal molecules like benzene, or spines.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.

But that's only said for the sake of discussion to highlight why a lot of the magical attributes given to gods don't pass basic tests of logic, like proof by contradiction. The error here is to call them "ignorant", because they don't "know" something is true, as claimed by people who could not possibly know if it is true or not. A rigged game.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

Hillary is pro-abortion. You fools are claiming that we should have voted for an abortionist over Trump.

Pro-abortion is not what you accused. You are moving the goalpost.

You're a liar till the end. You serve Satan, the father of the lie.

Well now, if God were truly omnipotent he'd relieve his children of Satan. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent, and hence not a god at all. Feel free to explain that God cannot accomplish free will without evil and choices. Again, this means he is not all powerful, and you know where that leads.

MLK responds...

"...We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. This applies to the power of a gun, or a drug, or an argument, or even a sermon! Does it achieve its end? Does it fulfill its purpose?

We must realize that God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. We can see this clearly in human illustrations. My purpose in doing a crossword puzzle is not to fill in certain words. I could fill them in easily by waiting for tomorrow morning's paper. Filling them in without the answers is harder but much more satisfying, for it calls out resourcefulness, ingenuity, and discipline which by the easier way would find no self expression.

You are bobbing and weaving. I've bolded a few of your responses and replied.

There is no difference between omnipotence and sheer omnipotence. All powerful is all powerful. The act of crushing is merely the result improperly wielding power. Are you confessing that your god is not up to that challenge? What then makes her God?

It is apparent that you have no solution to the Epicurean Riddle. I am disappointed.

I find it intellectually lazy to use the satisfaction of solving a crossword puzzle to justify your god's need to indulge pain and suffering to achieve her goals. What you are really saying is that if you don't do the crossword correctly, your god might take you out.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

Hillary is pro-abortion. You fools are claiming that we should have voted for an abortionist over Trump.

Pro-abortion is not what you accused. You are moving the goalpost.

You're a liar till the end. You serve Satan, the father of the lie.

Well now, if God were truly omnipotent he'd relieve his children of Satan. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent, and hence not a god at all. Feel free to explain that God cannot accomplish free will without evil and choices. Again, this means he is not all powerful, and you know where that leads.

Now let's see what Maimonides has to say...

[MEN frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things, that just isn't the case. He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without being subject to any external influence, or any of the accidents of matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, viz., to be at the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never subject to change there could be no generation: there would be one single being, but no individuals forming a species. It would be in vain to expect to see living beings formed of the blood of menstruous women and the semen virile, who will not die, will never feel pain, or will move perpetually, or will shine like the sun. Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the semen is the species of man, for as far as man's nature is known, he is living, reasonable, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil. You will, nevertheless, find that the evils of the above kind which befall man are very few and rare.

It must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good. God is perfect goodness, and that all that comes from Him is absolutely good. Consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. ALL the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.]

More double talk.

If evil is just an accident, it's still God's accident. If it's not an accident, what does it say of God's compassion for the innocent.

Answer the question... whence comes evil?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

Hmm, no, it may not have been nothing. The universe may just always have been. And selection results in things that give the illusion of design, like spheroids floating in outer space, or hexagonal molecules like benzene, or spines.

Yes, given endless opportunity, all things shall come to pass.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Given something can go wrong, it will.
Given trolls are able to post shit freely, they will.
Given something can go right, it will..
Given it's not destroyed by all the things that can go wrong doing so first.

 

[ding]

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

Hillary is pro-abortion. You fools are claiming that we should have voted for an abortionist over Trump.

Pro-abortion is not what you accused. You are moving the goalpost.

You're a liar till the end. You serve Satan, the father of the lie.

Well now, if God were truly omnipotent he'd relieve his children of Satan. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent, and hence not a god at all. Feel free to explain that God cannot accomplish free will without evil and choices. Again, this means he is not all powerful, and you know where that leads.

MLK responds...

"...We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. This applies to the power of a gun, or a drug, or an argument, or even a sermon! Does it achieve its end? Does it fulfill its purpose?

We must realize that God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. We can see this clearly in human illustrations. My purpose in doing a crossword puzzle is not to fill in certain words. I could fill them in easily by waiting for tomorrow morning's paper. Filling them in without the answers is harder but much more satisfying, for it calls out resourcefulness, ingenuity, and discipline which by the easier way would find no self expression.

You are bobbing and weaving. I've bolded a few of your responses and replied.

There is no difference between omnipotence and sheer omnipotence. All powerful is all powerful. The act of crushing is merely the result improperly wielding power. Are you confessing that your god is not up to that challenge? What then makes her God?

It is apparent that you have no solution to the Epicurean Riddle. I am disappointed.

I find it intellectually lazy to use the satisfaction of solving a crossword puzzle to justify your god's need to indulge pain and suffering to achieve her goals. What you are really saying is that if you don't do the crossword correctly, your god might take you out.

Wouldn't that be Martin Luther King Jr was bobbing and weaving?

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree though. It seems to me that MLK has struck the nail firmly on the head.

 

[ding]

I won't call you a liar as you did me. Instead, I'll turn the other cheek and ask you to link me to some hard evidence on your claims about Hillary?

Hillary is pro-abortion. You fools are claiming that we should have voted for an abortionist over Trump.

Pro-abortion is not what you accused. You are moving the goalpost.

You're a liar till the end. You serve Satan, the father of the lie.

Well now, if God were truly omnipotent he'd relieve his children of Satan. If he cannot, then he is not omnipotent, and hence not a god at all. Feel free to explain that God cannot accomplish free will without evil and choices. Again, this means he is not all powerful, and you know where that leads.

Now let's see what Maimonides has to say...

[MEN frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things, that just isn't the case. He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without being subject to any external influence, or any of the accidents of matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, viz., to be at the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never subject to change there could be no generation: there would be one single being, but no individuals forming a species. It would be in vain to expect to see living beings formed of the blood of menstruous women and the semen virile, who will not die, will never feel pain, or will move perpetually, or will shine like the sun. Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the semen is the species of man, for as far as man's nature is known, he is living, reasonable, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil. You will, nevertheless, find that the evils of the above kind which befall man are very few and rare.

It must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good. God is perfect goodness, and that all that comes from Him is absolutely good. Consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. ALL the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.]

More double talk.

If evil is just an accident, it's still God's accident. If it's not an accident, what does it say of God's compassion for the innocent.

Answer the question... whence comes evil?

Again... we are going to have to agree to disagree. I value the opinion of MLK and Maimonides more than I value your opinion of their opinion. Especially since I believe what they have said on this subject makes sense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I value the opinion of MLK and Maimonides more than I value your opinion of their opinion. Especially since I believe what they have said on this subject makes sense.

You mean, ONLY since.

 

[ding]

I value the opinion of MLK and Maimonides more than I value your opinion of their opinion. Especially since I believe what they have said on this subject makes sense.

You mean, ONLY since.

I don't think so. I've worked the problem from both angles.