Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

Atheists want to fund stem cell research so we can cure cancer and alzheimers. We like abortion because the planet is already over populated. We like euthenasia because we don't think terminal people should suffer. Tell me what beliefs atheists have that are "dangerous to civilization"?

Based on your rant, I would say the #1 thing is respect for life.

 

[Uncensored2008]

this post just highlights that ignorance....
your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
so again : Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest

Wow, Duhs and SillyBonobo in the same thread... You two work together and you MIGHT be able to pass a 2nd grade science quiz...

Nah, probably not... but your odds improve...

 

[daws101]

this post just highlights that ignorance....
your assumptions are just that, assumptions.
so again : Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest

Wow, Duhs and SillyBonobo in the same thread... You two work together and you MIGHT be able to pass a 2nd grade science quiz...

Nah, probably not... but your odds improve...

must be a slow day !

 

[Montrovant]

It leaves the question of what created that non-physical thing..

No, it really doesn't, because what do you mean when you say "created"? A creation is something that happens in the physical realm of existence or reality. It's actually short for "physical creation" and only applies to physical things. Non-physical things do not require creation, they aren't physical.

It's funny that you say there can be all kinds of theories and opinions, we really don't know....then immediately claim we do know there couldn't have been anything physical before the Big Bang.

It's because we know what creates physical reality and existence. It is the expanding of our universe and time which is caused by it. If you don't have an expanding universe, you don't have time, and there is no place for anything physical to exist. So this is the one thing we know did not create the universe.

Now... there may have been another universe, there may be many universes now, we don't know. However, since we know that physics operate under established principles and properties of elements in this universe, we can presume they probably would in other universes as well, but what makes the physics and elements behave as they do in our physical reality? Time and space, created by an expanding universe. We have no way of knowing if another universe would have the same rate of expansion, the same physics parameters or even the same behavior of elements. Reality in another universe could be dramatically different than our own. Even things like the rules of logic may not apply. (Sorry, Spock!)

How do you know these non-physical things do not require creation? You make a lot of claims about the properties of the spiritual with little to no explanation how you come by such knowledge.

If you can show me where the mathematicians and scientists behind the current versions of the Big Bang theory say that there could not have been a physical reality prior to the Big Bang, that's fine. As I have said, what little I've read on the subject makes no such claim. I've yet to read anything about the theoretical singularity being non-physical, or that only within our universe post-BB is any physical reality possible.

 

[Boss]

How do you know these non-physical things do not require creation?

Because of what "creation" is and what it means.

You make a lot of claims about the properties of the spiritual with little to no explanation how you come by such knowledge.

I've made no claims about the properties of spiritual nature other than it's not physical nature.

I've yet to read anything about the theoretical singularity being non-physical...

It's because theoretical singularity is physical. It is the point where physical begins with the Big Bang. What preceded that is unknown, but it can't be physical since physical didn't yet exist. In order to have physical existence, you must have an expanding universe with spacetime continuum. This includes physical reality and time.

If you can show me where the mathematicians and scientists behind the current versions of the Big Bang theory say that there could not have been a physical reality prior to the Big Bang, that's fine.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity basically says just that. You're a smart guy, can you explain to me how physical reality can exist without time?

 

[Boss]

“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.

 

[Hollie]

“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.

"..... because I say so."

You speak with such authority on behalf of the gods. I'll require that you present a certified letter, signed by the gods, authorizing you as their official spokesboss.

Your testimony to daily communications with the gods is fine, and so is your commanding of the French forces at Waterloo, but run along now and take your meds.

 

[sealybobo]

“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.

Yea, he's not deep, you are boss man.

 

[sealybobo]

“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.

Oops. That wasn't the quote I wanted to show you. So now are you going to make fun of this guy too? Typical conservative thing to do. No matter who we quote, just belittle the person I quote as if they are not a credible source. I can think of a million examples. Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore.

It's a slimy tactics Republicans use to avoid the actual content or subject. Poo Poo the facts because you don't like the source. Well get what asshole? No fucking retard you read or listen to is going to tell you the truth, so if you just keep blowing off the people who tell you the truth, well guess what that makes you? A close minded tool.

You just did it to Neal Degrasse Tyson, which makes you a fucking joke. So now you are smarter than him too? Wow. You're the smartest guy who spends all day on USMB, fucking retard.

“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss

 

[sealybobo]

“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

I wish I could ask Neil why he thinks this is so profound? Is there any question that we might be comprised of molecules not found anywhere else in the universe? Yes, God used common materials of the universe when He created us, He didn't use special matter that doesn't exist elsewhere.

all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time.

Do you know what this tell us stupid? That god didn't cause the big bang to invent people. Because billions of years went by after the big bang and no human's. If we took the start of the universe to today and put it all on a 1 year calendar human's would only be on the calendar for 1 day of that entire year. December 31st. Where were we the rest of the year? What the fuck was god doing all that time? Didn't he have anything better to do? Are you insane?

 

[sealybobo]

Hell, human's may only account for the last hour on December 31st. We probably don't even account for a whole day. What took god so long? Were we the first toy he ever invented? What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang? If you believe in god you probably aren't smart enough to grasp this so....

 

[Montrovant]

How do you know these non-physical things do not require creation?

Because of what "creation" is and what it means.

You make a lot of claims about the properties of the spiritual with little to no explanation how you come by such knowledge.

I've made no claims about the properties of spiritual nature other than it's not physical nature.

I've yet to read anything about the theoretical singularity being non-physical...

It's because theoretical singularity is physical. It is the point where physical begins with the Big Bang. What preceded that is unknown, but it can't be physical since physical didn't yet exist. In order to have physical existence, you must have an expanding universe with spacetime continuum. This includes physical reality and time.

If you can show me where the mathematicians and scientists behind the current versions of the Big Bang theory say that there could not have been a physical reality prior to the Big Bang, that's fine.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity basically says just that. You're a smart guy, can you explain to me how physical reality can exist without time?

That you have your own personal definition of the word creation (and other words, as evidenced through this thread) is not conducive to discussion. The word creation is not dependent on physical reality. We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see. However, if someone says that, as an example, god created angels, would that not be a non-physical entity creating more non-physical entities? Is there any reason, outside of your own unexplained definition of the word, that one cannot say a greater, yet still non-physical, god created the god our our universe? You complain over and over about people nit-picking your word use, but that's because you have your own definitions for things!

I can't even explain how time can not exist. However, as I already stated, my reading on the Big Bang theory and the singularity which preceded it has described the conditions within the singularity as not following general relativity. Therefore, any appeal to the tenets of relativity is pointless; they don't apply.

Oh, and if what preceded the singularity is unknown (assuming that anything at all preceded it, and that the term preceded even applies) then what preceded it being non-physical isn't known.

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

Very late to this party, but I'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.

I keep my beliefs to myself 97% of the time, the other 3% comes from folks actively inquiring about my spiritual beliefs. Some don't mind my answer, some do. That's not my problem and I feel no shame or guilt. However, I do not and have not ever slighted any religion or belittled any believers. I consider that very disrespectful.

Nonetheless, I do not shy away from debates with believers as well, but I only discuss it with those who can actually carry on a measured, respectful discussion on the matter. If it gets out of control, I disengage.

 

[Boss]

How do you know these non-physical things do not require creation?

Because of what "creation" is and what it means.



I've made no claims about the properties of spiritual nature other than it's not physical nature.



It's because theoretical singularity is physical. It is the point where physical begins with the Big Bang. What preceded that is unknown, but it can't be physical since physical didn't yet exist. In order to have physical existence, you must have an expanding universe with spacetime continuum. This includes physical reality and time.

If you can show me where the mathematicians and scientists behind the current versions of the Big Bang theory say that there could not have been a physical reality prior to the Big Bang, that's fine.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity basically says just that. You're a smart guy, can you explain to me how physical reality can exist without time?

That you have your own personal definition of the word creation (and other words, as evidenced through this thread) is not conducive to discussion. The word creation is not dependent on physical reality. We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see. However, if someone says that, as an example, god created angels, would that not be a non-physical entity creating more non-physical entities? Is there any reason, outside of your own unexplained definition of the word, that one cannot say a greater, yet still non-physical, god created the god our our universe? You complain over and over about people nit-picking your word use, but that's because you have your own definitions for things!

I don't have my own definition. Create: to bring into existence. God is immortal and eternal and always existed.

We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.

All that we are aware of. I can create a vacuum, you can't see it yet it exists. Still, it is a word we apply to physical creation. I don't know about God creating angels, if I ever see God create an angel, I'll believe that is a possibility. As for now, it's wild speculation that spiritual nature has spiritual creation or that the word can apply to spiritual things.

I can't even explain how time can not exist. However, as I already stated, my reading on the Big Bang theory and the singularity which preceded it...

Hold on, you need correcting again. Theorized singularity does not "precede" the Big Bang. It is the point where the Big Bang begins. Nothing physical can exist prior to this, there is no time or space for physical to exist.

...has described the conditions within the singularity as not following general relativity. Therefore, any appeal to the tenets of relativity is pointless; they don't apply.

General relativity applies to our universe, time, space, and perception of physical reality. Without an expanding universe, there is no time and subsequently, no physical reality. As you said, you can't even explain how time cannot exist. Yet, before the Big Bang created the universe (including singularity), time did not exist. If time can't exist, the physical can't exist.

Oh, and if what preceded the singularity is unknown (assuming that anything at all preceded it, and that the term preceded even applies) then what preceded it being non-physical isn't known.

Well since we do know that time creates physical reality, we know that before time there couldn't have been physical reality. Singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang, it doesn't precede it. It's like claiming the dropping of the green flag in NASCAR is an event preceding the race, it is not. It is the event that begins the race.

Long before man knew ANY of this stuff, we had an intrinsic connection to something greater than ourselves, something greater than physical nature. We are aware of this by design. We could have never accomplished what we've done without this intrinsic connection and awareness of something greater.

 

[Montrovant]

Because of what "creation" is and what it means.



I've made no claims about the properties of spiritual nature other than it's not physical nature.



It's because theoretical singularity is physical. It is the point where physical begins with the Big Bang. What preceded that is unknown, but it can't be physical since physical didn't yet exist. In order to have physical existence, you must have an expanding universe with spacetime continuum. This includes physical reality and time.



Einstein's Theory of Relativity basically says just that. You're a smart guy, can you explain to me how physical reality can exist without time?

That you have your own personal definition of the word creation (and other words, as evidenced through this thread) is not conducive to discussion. The word creation is not dependent on physical reality. We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see. However, if someone says that, as an example, god created angels, would that not be a non-physical entity creating more non-physical entities? Is there any reason, outside of your own unexplained definition of the word, that one cannot say a greater, yet still non-physical, god created the god our our universe? You complain over and over about people nit-picking your word use, but that's because you have your own definitions for things!

I don't have my own definition. Create: to bring into existence. God is immortal and eternal and always existed.

We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.

All that we are aware of. I can create a vacuum, you can't see it yet it exists. Still, it is a word we apply to physical creation. I don't know about God creating angels, if I ever see God create an angel, I'll believe that is a possibility. As for now, it's wild speculation that spiritual nature has spiritual creation or that the word can apply to spiritual things.



Hold on, you need correcting again. Theorized singularity does not "precede" the Big Bang. It is the point where the Big Bang begins. Nothing physical can exist prior to this, there is no time or space for physical to exist.

...has described the conditions within the singularity as not following general relativity. Therefore, any appeal to the tenets of relativity is pointless; they don't apply.

General relativity applies to our universe, time, space, and perception of physical reality. Without an expanding universe, there is no time and subsequently, no physical reality. As you said, you can't even explain how time cannot exist. Yet, before the Big Bang created the universe (including singularity), time did not exist. If time can't exist, the physical can't exist.

Oh, and if what preceded the singularity is unknown (assuming that anything at all preceded it, and that the term preceded even applies) then what preceded it being non-physical isn't known.

Well since we do know that time creates physical reality, we know that before time there couldn't have been physical reality. Singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang, it doesn't precede it. It's like claiming the dropping of the green flag in NASCAR is an event preceding the race, it is not. It is the event that begins the race.

Long before man knew ANY of this stuff, we had an intrinsic connection to something greater than ourselves, something greater than physical nature. We are aware of this by design. We could have never accomplished what we've done without this intrinsic connection and awareness of something greater.

You continue to make little sense. You have already used the word create in reference to non-physical things in your post. It doesn't matter if god is capable of creating angels or not, all that matters is that the word is correct in that context. The definition of create you provided, 'to bring into existence', does not require the physical.

I think you have a mistaken impression of the concept of the singularity from which the Big Bang sprang. Normal physics, general relativity, these things did not function within the singularity. Only after the explosion creating the universe occurred did those things begin. However, the singularity is not, that I am aware of, considered non-physical.

 

[Boss]

That you have your own personal definition of the word creation (and other words, as evidenced through this thread) is not conducive to discussion. The word creation is not dependent on physical reality. We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see. However, if someone says that, as an example, god created angels, would that not be a non-physical entity creating more non-physical entities? Is there any reason, outside of your own unexplained definition of the word, that one cannot say a greater, yet still non-physical, god created the god our our universe? You complain over and over about people nit-picking your word use, but that's because you have your own definitions for things!

I don't have my own definition. Create: to bring into existence. God is immortal and eternal and always existed.

We only see creation in physical reality because, quite simply, that is all we see.

All that we are aware of. I can create a vacuum, you can't see it yet it exists. Still, it is a word we apply to physical creation. I don't know about God creating angels, if I ever see God create an angel, I'll believe that is a possibility. As for now, it's wild speculation that spiritual nature has spiritual creation or that the word can apply to spiritual things.



Hold on, you need correcting again. Theorized singularity does not "precede" the Big Bang. It is the point where the Big Bang begins. Nothing physical can exist prior to this, there is no time or space for physical to exist.



General relativity applies to our universe, time, space, and perception of physical reality. Without an expanding universe, there is no time and subsequently, no physical reality. As you said, you can't even explain how time cannot exist. Yet, before the Big Bang created the universe (including singularity), time did not exist. If time can't exist, the physical can't exist.

Oh, and if what preceded the singularity is unknown (assuming that anything at all preceded it, and that the term preceded even applies) then what preceded it being non-physical isn't known.

Well since we do know that time creates physical reality, we know that before time there couldn't have been physical reality. Singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang, it doesn't precede it. It's like claiming the dropping of the green flag in NASCAR is an event preceding the race, it is not. It is the event that begins the race.

Long before man knew ANY of this stuff, we had an intrinsic connection to something greater than ourselves, something greater than physical nature. We are aware of this by design. We could have never accomplished what we've done without this intrinsic connection and awareness of something greater.

You continue to make little sense. You have already used the word create in reference to non-physical things in your post. It doesn't matter if god is capable of creating angels or not, all that matters is that the word is correct in that context. The definition of create you provided, 'to bring into existence', does not require the physical.

I think you have a mistaken impression of the concept of the singularity from which the Big Bang sprang. Normal physics, general relativity, these things did not function within the singularity. Only after the explosion creating the universe occurred did those things begin. However, the singularity is not, that I am aware of, considered non-physical.

Existence. What is meant by this? Are you not talking about physical existence? When we use the word "create" it means to bring into physical existence. It can have no other meaning unless it's a philosophical speculation of something not known.

The Big Bang did not "spring from" singularity. Again, theorized singularity is the beginning of the Big Bang. If normal physics did not function within the singularity it wasn't physical because that's what physics entails. I don't profess to know if singularity is physical or non-physical, I presume it is physical if it happened in our physical universe and reality. Nevertheless, whatever preceded singularity is not physical and cannot be physical.

Now you want to argue that it's not known whether anything existed before singularity, and I can agree that surely nothing physical existed, but the notion that nothing created something is a contradiction of basic logic. It's "magic" on a higher order than any God man has ever imagined. Certainly something did cause the Big Bang, and certainly it wasn't physical.

 

[Boss]

all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time.

Do you know what this tell us stupid?

That you are likely to fail any high school science class when you get there? That you are a totally incompetent and silly boob who should avoid topics on science? That you must believe in magical fairies who created things that matter for evolution and life?

Matter doesn't create matter. Every element for evolution and life has always been in the universe.

That god didn't cause the big bang to invent people. Because billions of years went by after the big bang and no human's. If we took the start of the universe to today and put it all on a 1 year calendar human's would only be on the calendar for 1 day of that entire year. December 31st. Where were we the rest of the year? What the fuck was god doing all that time? Didn't he have anything better to do? Are you insane? ...Hell, human's may only account for the last hour on December 31st. We probably don't even account for a whole day. What took god so long? Were we the first toy he ever invented? What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang? If you believe in god you probably aren't smart enough to grasp this so....

You seem to be hung up on time, and time is something that simply makes no difference to God. Millions of years or billions of years, is just our measurement of the effects caused by an expanding universe. Every second of reality you experience is caused by the expanding of the universe, creating a spacetime continuum in which physical reality exists. The entire lifespan of our universe, as well as a million more like it, have no bearing on God in terms of time. While billions of years have passed for us, no time has passed for God.

What did he do for the infinite amount of time that took place before the big bang?

First of all, time is not infinite. It is very much finite. We believe the universe began billions of years ago and will eventually end, and so will time. Before the Big Bang there was no time. The perception of time is created by the expanding universe. So there is no "infinite amount of time before the Big Bang" since time did not yet exist.

What took god so long?

Again, your mind is having a problem grasping what time is. You have some kind of concept that time exited before the universe, and God somehow is confined to a human's perception of time. Go read some books on time and what it is. You'll find it is a dimension which exists in our universe, and simply put, is a measurement of the expansion of said universe. God is outside of the universe even though God is a part of the universe. Time was created by God with the creation of an expanding universe. The only significance time has is in respect to the material physical reality we experience.

 

[Boss]

Very late to this party, but I'll throw my 2 cents in anyway.

I keep my beliefs to myself 97% of the time, the other 3% comes from folks actively inquiring about my spiritual beliefs. Some don't mind my answer, some do. That's not my problem and I feel no shame or guilt. However, I do not and have not ever slighted any religion or belittled any believers. I consider that very disrespectful.

Nonetheless, I do not shy away from debates with believers as well, but I only discuss it with those who can actually carry on a measured, respectful discussion on the matter. If it gets out of control, I disengage.

In real life, I am much the same way. I keep my personal spirituality to myself and don't disparage others over what they believe. I find myself in an interesting scenario here over the past 6 months or so, because I am engaging in debate with predominantly atheists over the existence of God. From their perspective, I am some sort of "religious fundamentalist" but I repeatedly reject the claims of being religious. I am not religious.

I challenge the atheists on their arguments because they are weak and superfluous arguments. They like to attempt perverting science to promote atheism, and I call them on it. Now I could probably just as easily seek out a Christian forum and pick on Christians for their beliefs, but it's no fun for me to pick on Christians. I had much rather razz on atheists.

I am a Spiritualist. I don't simply "believe" in God, I am spiritually connected to God. It's not the God of the Bible or the Christian God, in fact, it has no humanistic attributes of Abrahamic religion or any other organized religion. It's spiritual energy, a guiding spiritual force that I know exists because I connect with it. Don't really care if anyone believes it, not trying to "win souls over" for God. It's just my personal spiritual foundation.

I have respect for most religious people, I believe they are honestly and earnestly attempting to understand a real spiritual connection. I respect what I've read and understand of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, I think there is a lot of wisdom there for leading a good spiritual life. I don't believe it is The Word of God or Jesus is The Son of God, but it is a great inspirational book of guidance for many, and I can appreciate that.

My argument and point of contention is with atheists who reject human spirituality. Even though the evidence shows humans have been spiritually connecting for all their existence and there is no scientific evidence to disprove spiritual nature. In fact, the scientific evidence very much suggests that spiritual nature created physical nature and reality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

false! I and many others have explained it to you.

Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.

Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..

Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..

Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....

Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.

But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.

Just plain ignorance at its worst.

1. There is no evidence that shows design in nature.

2. There no such thing as a "mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process ..."

Posting these absurdities you steal from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.

Anyone who denies the overwhelming evidence of design is just simply in denial. Of course there are mathematical impossibilities just as there are mathematical possibilities you dimwit.

So what is the purpose of mathematics

 

[Youwerecreated]

false! I and many others have explained it to you.

Atheists don't define themselves by having answers to this question, so why ask.
Mainstream science is the body of knowledge that addresses such questions, however there are no conclusive answers to this question currently.

Mainstream science makes NO CLAIMS about where life originated, indeed it makes no claims about anything, as it only describes the natural world. However what it does describe is VERIFIABLE..

Offering a "god of the gaps" argument where the scientific knowledge is as yet undiscovered is the argument of an infantile intellect and wilful scientific illiteracy, however these gaps are shrinking daily as science marches ever forward, leaving behind your stagnant bronze age religious dogmas where they belong, in ancient history..

Only you thumpers have an explanation and it's false....

Your argument is scientifically illiterate, ill informed, infantile and dishonest.

But daws you say my views are based on self imposed ignorance. I can assume because looking at nature that the evidence shows deliberate design to everything's existence but you on the other hand, want to think no designer was needed defying known laws and have no clue as how we came in to existence,ignoring the mathematical impossibility that a non-directed natural process produced all we see and giving us everything from protection mechanisms,a brain to reason,the organs and everything else required for life.

Atheists/scientists who also happen to be scientists have debated this issue and what you are saying may make sense in your own head but whatever you just said is not proof of a god.

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

I can see Boss doing a bong hit and being so sure his theory is correct and you know what? It might be. He might actually be right. How many great minds were laughed at and doubted until one day, long after they died someone proves their theory right.

Then he'll be able to rest in piece. Actually it does him no good when he's dead. He's not a ghost like Patrick Swazy. He's not an angel watching from heaven. He's actually rotting in pieces in the earth. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. It's life. Enjoy it while you can. You only live once, PROBABLY. But to tell me to believe in the Jesus cult made up by 11 guys or go to hell?

The real problem is because scientists can't prove the creators existence, they will not support the evidence of design even with it biting them in the butt. Once again, because they can't prove God exists they will ignore the evidence of design and just plead ignorance concerning the origins of life question.