Quote :

"I never understood why God gets a free pass on existing forever but the Universe doesn't."

I like the way you think. Here's a mind fuck, try and imagine if "God" could even prevent the creation of the universe or if it's a force of nature outside his realm as well. The fact that we humans can even comprehend the universe, is in-and-of-itself, incomprehensible, and perhaps what some of you would call a "miracle," at the same time.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : -]

10/1/2009 3:06:28 PM

Quote :

"The big bang may very well have happened, but it requires the collision of two or more particles. "Where did those particles come from?" is the natural question."

We don't know yet. Admitting that does not give any evidence towards a divine creator at all.

10/1/2009 3:09:19 PM

Nor does it refute Him.

Quote :

"I never understood why God gets a free pass on existing forever but the Universe doesn't."

Again that statement limits God to the finite nature of our Universe.

10/1/2009 3:11:35 PM

ignorance is bliss

10/1/2009 3:13:14 PM

Quote :

"Nor does it refute Him."

Nor does it refute that I am an omnipotent being secretly living among you taking the form of a 26 year old human who lives in North Carolina.

Does that mean that I am just as likely to have created the Universe, because you cannot "refute" my claim?

10/1/2009 3:13:54 PM

What is my full name?

I just refuted your claim. If you were omnipotent you could tell me, no?

10/1/2009 3:18:30 PM

Quote :

"For not having been "indoctrinated" at a young age, you are quick to default to the "Christian God,""

Your choice of prose is in the tradition of emotionally based evangelical Christianity. It doesn't take too much deduction to assume you're not one of the other major mono-theistic faiths.

Quote :

"Again that statement limits God to the finite nature of your Universe. God"

see how that works? It's fun isn't it?

Quote :

"What is my full name? I just refuted your claim. If you were omnipotent you could tell me, no?"

He chooses not to reveal his knowledge of you, but you cannot prove that he doesn't know it. Do not tempt God thy e-lord.

10/1/2009 3:20:18 PM

I have busier things to do than answer simple questions from a human. I'm all powerful. I created the Universe. Prove that I didn't.

10/1/2009 3:21:07 PM

ahaha, touche, touche. I think it is getting a bit tongue-in-cheek though.

10/1/2009 3:24:50 PM

See, now that we've got you in a corner, you're backing off. Why not acknowledge that there's no evidence for a God, and the only reason you're this way is because your parents taught you, from a young age when you would believe anything, that God existed?

10/1/2009 3:26:39 PM

^^ a bit, but this is a legitimate point. When people point out the discrepancies between God and our observations, or God and Himself in his own book, the response is, "well he is a mystery we can't know him." Which is fine but the problem is that, not only are there people who claim to understand the unknowable, but they know what he thinks, and they know how he wants you to act.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM. Reason : this is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?]

10/1/2009 3:27:10 PM

Look, Wolfpack. You believe in god because of faith. You do not believe in it because of evidence. You need to stop deluding yourself with flawed logic and just accept that you believe because you want to believe.

10/1/2009 3:30:15 PM

The corner you backed me into is pretty fragile. You still haven't proven that God does not exist, nor how our Universe does exist.

I am really not trying to sway you. I can't. I've been explaining since the beginning that our own knowledge is an obstacle.

What I can say is that God will never be disproved, and in the meantime apologetics does offer myriad historical, architectural and physical elements that lead me, as you say, to believe that God exists.

You are right. It is a belief, and I probably have tainted some of my rhetoric by getting into a back and forth, but I enjoy the discussion.

10/1/2009 3:38:57 PM

Quote :

"But how does it behave in a vacuum?"

afaik There's not anything in physical reality that corresponds to our notion of "vacuum"; due to the uncertainty principle there are always small fluctuations.

Quote :

""Where did those particles come from?" is the natural question."

It's a natural question but that doesn't mean it has a sensible answer.

Quote :

"Again that statement limits God to the finite nature of our Universe"

You can't define your solution to have the necessary properties and then claim to have done any serious intellectual work. The "God" answer always involves pretending that all natural lines of human questioning have answers, and then simply assuming that an answer exists with the necessary properties. Then an extra jump is made to a particular form.

Quote :

"You still haven't proven that God does not exist, nor how our Universe does exist."

Neither is necessary for disbelief in God to be rational. Adopting the simplest possible theory of the universe consistent with our observations culls out extravagant objects (like ones that exist outside of space and time, whatever that's supposed to mean).

Quote :

"What is my full name?"

Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 3:46 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 3:40:06 PM

Quote :

"You still haven't proven that God does not exist"

The christian god does not exist by virtue of the fact that there is no evidence for its existence. None of the god claims made in the bible or by anyone else have stood the test of science or reason. You have to provide evidence for something TO EXIST, not for something NOT TO EXIST.

Now, there may be some other god that rules over all the universes and is completely invisible to our ability to observe it with science. But there is no reason to believe that exists any more than there is a flying spaghetti monster living on Pluto.

Quote :

"apologetics does offer myriad historical, architectural and physical elements that lead me, as you say, to believe that God exists."

This is not evidence that god exists. This is evidence that people believed in a god.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 3:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 3:48:34 PM

Quote :

"The corner you backed me into is pretty fragile. You still haven't proven that God does not exist"

But, do you not realize you can make that claim with ANY idea? You can't prove that Santa does not exist. You can't prove that time travel does not exist. You can't prove that Bigfoot does not exist. You can't prove that you are not living inside The Matrix.

Because you can't prove these, does that make them plausible valid assumptions?

This isn't how logic works. You can't say that "because you can't DISPROVE XYZ, then we must assume that XYZ exists."

The onus is on YOU to PROVE something, not ME to DISPROVE it.

And no, it's not "fragile." My position is backed by ALL evidence gathered regarding the natural world over the course of human history.

10/1/2009 3:49:40 PM

Watch out, if we gang up on him that will only validate his Christian persecution complex and the idea that we're all "militant Atheists."

10/1/2009 3:50:35 PM

Humans will forever look into the heavens for universal answers, and the innate emotional framework of our minds compels us to comfort ourselves with answers to these difficult questions. It is only natural to want to believe in a greater purpose for mankind, to seek to understand the meaning of life itself, but our contrived conclusions are nothing more than baseless attempts to explain that which we do not understand, and perhaps, cannot. However, we must never cease the discovery of the unknown, no matter how hopeless of a cause it may seem to be. For that is what makes us human, and that human drive to know more, is what will propel us toward a better understanding of the everything.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 3:55 PM. Reason : -]

10/1/2009 3:52:47 PM

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

~Carl Sagan

10/1/2009 4:05:27 PM

So ill break it down to brass tacks.

Our universe exists.
Something or someone had to create our universe.
That someone or something had to exist outside of this universe because something can't come from nothing.
Scientists including the premier scientist in the US agree that the answer isnt going to be proffered through science.
I seek out an answer elsewhere.
My opinion is a god must exist.
My conclusion is the historical and physical evidence (including the Bible, yes) of the Christian God best answers the question.
I live my life accordingly.
I haven't been disappointed yet.
I enjoy the interchange of ideas, because it does make me return and bolster my argument.


Can I prove God to you? No, I am not that self-involved to think so. But my life has improved dramatically since following him--however misguided I may be.

10/1/2009 4:06:32 PM

Quote :

"Our universe exists. Something or someone had to create our universe. That someone or something had to exist outside of this universe because something can't come from nothing. Scientists including the premier scientist in the US agree that the answer isnt going to be proffered through science. I seek out an answer elsewhere. My opinion is a god must exist. My conclusion is the historical and physical evidence (including the Bible, yes) of the Christian God best answers the question. I live my life accordingly. I haven't been disappointed yet. I enjoy the interchange of ideas, because it does make me return and bolster my argument[/s]"

10/1/2009 4:13:29 PM

Your conclusion is natural, but your answer simply raises more questions, that which cannot be verified. However, if your belief makes you happy, then to each his own. If your belief makes you miserable, perhaps giving in for the sake of your happiness is not the craziest idea in the world. Regardless, it does not prove anything, but it can help you sleep at night.

10/1/2009 4:13:31 PM

Our universe exists. Okay... I'm going along with you here.
Something or someone had to create our universe. SomeONE? You're already assuming a person or being here... you're starting to falter...
That someone or something had to exist outside of this universe because something can't come from nothing. You're completely off the rails, misunderstanding the nature and history of the Universe. This is the same argument people make against life being created "out of nothing" on Earth when they don't understand the nature of life.
Scientists including the premier scientist in the US agree that the answer isnt going to be proffered through science. Well, I looked up "preoffered," and Merriam-Webster didn't have it listed. Regardless, most scientists do believe in science and it's ability to find the truth.
I seek out an answer elsewhere. Why?
My opinion is a god must exist. Only because you were raised Christian. If you were raised in a polytheistic faith, you would believe something completely different. Does this not cause you discomfort?
My conclusion is the historical and physical evidence (including the Bible, yes) of the Christian God best answers the question. This is a flawed conclusion.
I live my life accordingly. It seems so.
I haven't been disappointed yet. Just wait till you die.
I enjoy the interchange of ideas, because it does make me return and bolster my argument. You're just admitting your confirmation bias here.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 4:13:51 PM

Im not being sarcastic at all here. Can you explain the nature of the universe then? I tend not to believe in ET, but I am not arguing against it. I am arguing that something (ill go along with you here) had to exist to cause the creation of the universe, and on and on. SO where did the first something come from?

I am definitely not a scientist, so maybe you can enlighten me a bit. Again, I know how this could come off sarcastically. THat is not my intent.

I spelled the word correctly. To proffer, is to offer for acceptance.

10/1/2009 4:20:14 PM

Quote :

"SO where did the first something come from?"

That is a question we're willing to admit is still a question. You seem to think you've already got the answer.

10/1/2009 4:24:25 PM

It's something that could not be explained in the ten thousand words limited to this post. To put it EXTREMELY simply, Astronomers, physicists, and other scientists have made theories based on evidence gained through observation. This observation is not limited to just telescopes but includes radiometric readings and other calculations.

I would encourage you to read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking.

You could also read the following Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

The major point is that in none of these observations over the course of modern science was evidence of a divine being discovered. There was no curtain, and there was no man standing behind it.

10/1/2009 4:25:51 PM

Why would a god go through the trouble of creating all of this:

http://z-e-r-o.up.seesaa.net/image/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg

If we only were able to explore one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percentage of it over the course of humanity's existence?

10/1/2009 4:28:46 PM

The interesting thing to me in the argument between God and no-god is the fact that the seed of doubt sprouts from the same place - how did either side come to exist.

If there is a God that created everything, how did he come to be?

If there is no god how is it that anything exists if laws of physics state that you cant create something from nothing?

Whoever can explain one of these first wins my vote.

10/1/2009 4:29:02 PM

Clearly in your argument, God would win since religion does offer an explanation.

Science (or, "no god" as you put it) says that "We do not know, but we are trying to figure it out. That is the wonder of the Universe."

And, again, something was not created from nothing. That is a misunderstanding of what the big bang was.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2009 4:31:03 PM

Quote :

"the premier scientist in the US"

who is this? just curious...

10/1/2009 4:39:29 PM

Francis Collins

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 4:47 PM. Reason : obviously up for debate on his premiership, but director of NIH is pretty prominent]

10/1/2009 4:45:57 PM

I believe he's referring to this man,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_S._Collins

who was an Atheist until he "suddenly became an evangelical Christian" after a hike or something.

10/1/2009 4:47:29 PM

I actually have a completely open mind and heart in these discussions.

Very open.

I do have my own opinion that is formed mostly on education through my science/medical courses (evolution) and other religion courses (which may bias me a bit). I would love to take some cosmology (is that the correct term) to understand what we do know is out "there."

I will not divulge into much of what i really believe, as its always changing
i tend to live by more of Buddhist principles.


but i do have a question....why in the WORLD would anyone think if there is a god, or gods, that we could possibly understand it?
we can't even understand our own universe, our own oceans, even our own bodies (don't believe me-take an advanced immunology course).
so to think that we, as humans, could comprehend this seems a little on the egotistic side to me.

imo

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 4:55 PM. Reason : btw-i didnt read past the first pg so sorry if this was already mentioned ]

10/1/2009 4:53:30 PM

yeah, thanks -- i know who francis collins is but had no clue who 'the premier scientist in the US' was

10/1/2009 4:55:49 PM

^^

I think ultimately the argument from ignorance is pretty weak - just because we don't know yet doesn't mean we'll never know why the universe came into being, or if its always existed. In any case, we should certainly be trying to figure it out. To take your example, should we stop investigating cosmology until we know why the human immune system works the way it does? How about until we've explored our own oceans (which remain largely unexplored to this point?) What I'm trying to say is that just because there are unexplored parts of all sciences, does not mean we can't make rational assumptions based on our evidence.

We know massively more today than we did 500 years ago. Imagine where we could be in 500 more (if only we lived so long.) Carl Sagan treads on this subject matter in Cosmos, which is largely available on youtube last time I checked.

Its kinda sad that all the arguements here, as trite (and some of them insightful) as they have been are all on well-worn territory. These same paths of logic (both for God's existence and aganist it) have been walked over and over and over.


[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ^]

10/1/2009 5:18:05 PM

Interestingly enough, some of the smarter men in the world have trod it as well:

Quote :

"During a debate with the biologist Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the explanation of those features of the universe that science finds difficult to explain (such as the values of certain physical constants favoring life), and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe. Dawkins called this "the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain", to which Collins responded "I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as 'Why am I here?', 'What happens after we die?' If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.""

Collins apparently has a better grasp on what exactly isn't explained by the data than anyone in this room, yet he is an evangelical Christian due to the fact that he cannot explain these things and draws a line from this inability to explain to a concept of theism to a concept of theism embraced by modern moderate Christian apologetics. I will not doubt the sincerity of his belief nor the depth based on his own observations, but the apparent fallacy still remains that he has attributed the unexplainable to the unexplainable.

10/1/2009 5:30:50 PM

I think Dawkins, and I see it as well, find it odd that for Collins to be such a man of science, to be a man who is open to things like the scientific method, he reserves this small spot in his brain for irrationality and delusion. That spot is where he puts religion.

10/1/2009 5:53:50 PM

Quote :

"he reserves this small spot in his brain for irrationality and delusion. That spot is where he puts religion."

assuming there is no god is just as assumptive as assuming there is a god

agnosticism ftw

10/1/2009 6:04:14 PM

assuming there is no Santa Claus is just as assumptive as assuming there is a Santa Claus

agnosticism ftw

10/1/2009 6:16:00 PM

this oughta convince you fuckers!

10/1/2009 6:22:09 PM

The Epic Peanut Butter Paradox. I'm sold.

10/1/2009 6:39:17 PM

The best part is how you can tell he had already broken the seal before shooting that video, meaning that technically when he opened the cap for that scene there actually was life already growing inside that jar.

10/1/2009 6:43:00 PM

Quote :

"assuming there is no Santa Claus is just as assumptive as assuming there is a Santa Claus"

ok let me try a different analogy

assuming the Big Bang created the universe is just as assumptive as assuming something other than the Big Bang created the universe / or that the universe has always existed

since, unlike Santa Claus, your parents didn't create the universe, maybe you'll get my point this time

10/1/2009 6:45:06 PM

We can literally reply with the same thing.

If you educated yourself on astrophysics there's really no other reasonable conclusion you could draw about the beginning of the Universe other than the big bang.

Go to the library.

10/1/2009 6:46:03 PM

Quote :

"there's really no other reasonable conclusion"

WELL THEN THAT SETTLES IT, I'M CONVINCED

the library knows enough to definitely tell me what happened 14 billion years ago

10/1/2009 6:47:12 PM

That's a really dumb argument.

"THE LIBERRY CAN DEFINITELY TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED WITH DINOSAURS, HURRR. THEREFORE I MUST CONCLUDE GOD MADE THE DINOSAURS."

10/1/2009 6:49:16 PM

so...because the library can't definitively say what happened when the universe was created, that means i think god made dinosaurs? what? MY argument is the dumb one???

newsflash defnsive boy...you're blindly arguing with me as if you think i'm a theist, when i'm not...its like you think anybody who isn't an atheist must be some bible thumper

but i guess if i had FAITH in atheism like you do, i, too, would be closeminded to agnosticism


[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:05 PM. Reason : >.<]

10/1/2009 6:50:52 PM

The problem with saying that "if you can't be sure of something than you're agnostic" is that this applies to LITERALLY EVERYTHING IN THE NATURAL WORLD.

There comes a point at which, given the evidence, you can make a reasonable conclusion as to the outcome. This is the foundation of science.

10/1/2009 7:05:16 PM

and reasonable conclusions are often proven to be wrong...thats why science is constantly evolving...things we thought were true 10 years ago now have other consensus conclusions...the foundation of science is to understand the world, universe, etc...that doesnt mean we actually understand the world, universe, etc

but if you choose to assume that its right, you're just as "bad" as theists

thats what atheists never seem to understand

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 7:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 7:06:21 PM

What the fuck?

How does someone like you even function in the real world?

"Will the sun rise tomorrow? Well... scientists are OFTEN proven to be wrong, oh no... it MIGHT NOT OH GOD>>>>"

10/1/2009 7:10:42 PM