"Atheism Produces Evil on Incredible Levels"

Actually, Stalin purposely starved Ukrainians to death.

 

Kalam cosmological argument has very many critics including philosophers, physicists.

Your answer describes nothing that can be described as God. God as a force implies something material, of time and space.

 

Causality implies space, time and material. A spaceless, timeless and materialless cause makes no sense. A timeless cause is like an immaterial rock, a colorless green or a massless weight. The Kalam argument is nothing more than kicking one's feet around an insisting that causality needs a cause. It's a self-referential mess.

Unless you can provide a definition of "cause" that makes to reference or implication involving a series of events (time), the argument is dead in the water.

 

Again you have not provided an argument for me to refute or challenge, you posted a video of pseudo scientific nonsense that was two and half hours long along with some videos of William Lane Craig which is quite amusing. Your refusal to present your evidence in any sort of detailed way is telling.

As for the rest of our discussion which I am happy to say I find most amusing.

"You cannot reject a claim without first claiming that rejection. Either way, you're still making a claim." ~Qchan

When it comes to your denial of the hyper intelligent firecracker are you making a claim or rejecting one? Now stop dodging and show me the evidence of your faith based claim or just admit that you hate the hyper intelligent firecracker.

 

If it time-less, then it has never existed.

 

Happened because of religeous organizations. Exclusion and bigotry are the mainstay of Religeon.

 

1.) Why would something have to be the opposite of what it created?
2.) Why does the universe need a creator?
3.) If the universe needs a creator why doesn't God need a creator?
2.) Why does that something in your scenario have to be a god?
3.) Why is that god your God and not some other god?

 

So God is the big bang. Actually a definition that relies on the concept of " less " is probably not much of a God. Try again using the term more. Unless of course you subscribe to the concept that less is more.

 

Do you think the purveyer of these stats, had a separate tally for Ukrainians who starved secondary to Stalin's policy objectives and another tally for , say - Siberians who starved or Georgians who starved inconsistent with Stalin's policy objectives as you describe them?

 

1) saying it doesn't make it so
2) no, we don't all know what the universe consists of. there's plenty yet to be discovered.
3) and other stuff we don't understand yet
4) saying it doesn't make it so
5) which god? and how do you know it's your god, and not one of the other hundreds of thousands? and why do you automatically assume it's a god or gods? there could be a trillion other explanations, all better.

 

I don't have the time or inclination to research an answer for you. I'm simply stating that Stalin purposely starved Ukrainians as apposed to them dying under poor agriculture policies.

 

Ah, the typical atheist response of, "We don't know."

1) I don't see you providing evidence to disprove it.

2) We have a pretty good idea of what's in the universe. We know that mass is material. Mass causes gravity, which is a force. We know that light has mass and can be altered by certain forces; forces which are created by mass... And mass is material. For you to deny this would mean you believe immaterial objects exist in the universe. We can't observe immaterial objects, so, you'd have to rely on faith to believe they exist. Last I checked, people like you don't do that.

3) Same as above

4) Same as #1

5) I never specified. Also, who cares? The point is, you have to conclude there was a designer of the universe. There's not recourse otherwise.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about. How about you try again, hmm?

I did provide an argument to refute or even challenge. However, you refused to examine my claims at all. Right now you're just blabbering and wasting both mine and your time.

This is common sense.

1) You can't create something while simultaneously being bound by its laws. When you draw a picture on a piece of paper, are you bound to the paper? Of course not.

2) Why not?

3) How do you create something that is timeless? Think about it.

4) Why can't it be?

5) I didn't specify which for this example. I simply said God fits the description of the creator of the universe. You would know this answer if you had simply examined the evidence I gave you.

Time-less means to not be bound by time. God exists outside of time.

 

Saying "we don't know" when we don't know if intellectual honest. Far better than making a guess and calling it knowledge. Designer arguments are intellectually lazy. "I don't know . . . but I want to know . . .so I'll pretend to know."

One thing that any physicist can tell you is that all of our common sense ways of thinking about time, causality and the way the universe works in general starts to fall apart when looking at extreme cosmological questions, like the origins of the universe. Any explanation is going to fly in the face of common sense. "No recourse" is a failure of the imagination and of intellectual honesty.

 

I have a major announcement to make: from now on I'm making a bold new font choice, so I seem more important.


Is a man living inside a fish for 3 days "common sense", Qchan, or does the Bible not have "common sense"? Please tell us which it is.

 

Then what caused the Big Bang? Simply saying you don't know implies that my reasoning is more plausible than yours.

Think of it like this. Lets say you have two children. You hear a crash in the kitchen. You race to the kitchen and you find both of your children there standing above a broken cookie jar. You then ask your children what happened. The first one says, "I don't know." and the second one says, "The dog came in and knocked it over." Sure, you can conclude that they are both lying, but which excuse is more plausible? The fact that one kid doesn't know or the fact that the dog knocked it over?

If you have no answers while I'm providing answers that appear to be consistent with what both you and I can observe, it would stand without question that my reasoning is more plausible and satisfying than yours.

Who are these critics, philosophers and physicists? What are their rebuttals? What's your belief on the causation of the Big Bang? Making a statement, no matter how loud you make it, doesn't make it right. Provide the evidence. I've laid mine out on the table and now its time for you to lay out yours.

 

Speaking of the "e" word, where is YOUR evidence that one particular invisible friend, out of the 200,000+- invisible friends who have ever been invented, is the one accurate, true, real invisible friend who created the universe?

 

What is north of the north pole? Not only do we not know, but the answer may well be that the question itself is completely nonsensical.

If the Big Bang is the origin of time, then it makes no sense to ask what caused it. Cause implies a temporal order. For there to be a cause, there has to be a “before”. If the Big Bang is the origin of time, then there is no before.

Now, if the Big Bang is not the origin of time, then it is part of a larger multiverse. That’s a whole other bag of worms. Long story short: the Big Bang is a terrible argument for theism and a terrible way of going about the cosmological argument.

Have you thought this through? Because it is a terrible argument and a terrible line of reasoning. “I don’t know” when we don’t know is the superior answer. You don’t get to worm in any and every explanation you like and call it superior just because it isn’t “I don’t know.”

And now you’ve paired a terrible argument with an even more terrible analogy.

Here’s a better one that actually captures the spirit of the conversation. Who was your great-great-great (to the 13th degree) grandfather, following your paternal lineage? I say it was Coco the vermillion Martian and unicyclist extraordinaire. According to your argument, my answer is superior to “I don’t know.” In actuality, “I don’t know” is the superior answer.

Your answer isn’t consistent with what you and I observe. With what you and I observe, causes are material causes that occur in time and space, and causes precede effects in time. A timeless, spaceless cause is not consistent with anything I observe and contradicts everything I have observed about causes.

 

The Big Bang was caused by the observation of some pre-universe "Creative Force," according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, which founds the Quantum Physics which had to occur.

 

Hard Science now shows the Unconscious mind is this "invisible friend" which Christians claim interact with them.



The author is a world famous Physicist who has worked with Hawkins.
He tells us that we do not consciously even realize that the "friend" inside us thinks way ahead of our Conscious min, and it influences many thing we do think, and exposes to some people many things we "invent" or "discover" as if we thought it up.

These Unconscious minds all seem to recognize one another, too.
The Collective mind appears to be amongst the living, as if a "Good Shepherd," before we are born and after we die.
This mind appears to be the "author" which spoke to Moses, and, also, the words which Christ used, too.

 

The "author" also speaks to people that live in places likes these gentlemen live, so unscientific claims by "prophets" and these gentlemen have to be put in the very same category (not to be trusted, except if those claims can be scientifically verified). We don't know if Moses and Jesus were as insane as these gentlemen:

 

But IT did provide that book, or sorts, and it is within consciousness. Which is where it should be instead of on paper, or stone, for those kinds of books can be and are corrupted.

Every human being that ever attained enlightenment, salvation, satori, or what else you want to call it, discovered that inner book. And it is not subject to the corruption of what man has written.

Of course, hardly anyone looks there, instead they read the various scriptures, from various religions, and look for salvation outside of their own consciousness, out there somewhere. This insures they will never find it, but then the scriptures become so important, and they will kill over them.

Enlightened people do not indulge in war, nor do they place any importance on books, no matter how ancient they are. They do not create mental images of this thing man has called god, for they understand all images created by thought are always false, and tend to mislead people, as they lead away from enlightenment.

But that book within man, has to be read by the individual, and I cannot read it for you, nor if I could, would it help anyone else out at all. It must be experienced, by each brain. But once man does find it, it revolutionizes that particular human consciousness, and replaces ego consciousness, which is the creator of every evil act that ever existed. So an enlightened person does not commit evil acts, for only ego consciousness does that. And anyone can discern an enlightened being, for he is the one that isn't operating from a strict self centered, selfish, center. And that is how the wheat is actually separated from the chaff, and that is the tree Christ spoke of, the one that does not produce bad fruit, but good fruit.

And so both the atheist and the theist are evil beings, for they commit evil acts, which comes from the ego's pursuit of self gratification, which takes many forms. There is no difference between the two, when it comes down to sin for they both will sin, as long as the ego is the ruler of their bodies.

 

Many things religious people preach are not consistent with....REALITY...period.

Reality is a strange concept to many of them. They are so utterly afraid of their eventual natural death that they'll actually believe that a man who cursed 3 entire villages, including children, to suffer worse torture than even, say, Saddam could dish out (in "hell", that his own dad created), for not believing that his magic tricks were real, is a GOOD person. Jesus was not a good person, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_of_Jesus

 

The human brain, or thought, cannot understand it. What lies outside of the universe, that is, what is it expanding into? It isn't space, for you cannot separate matter from the space that contains it. So, if the big bang happened, time, space, matter is what was manifested from it. Before it, there was no space, and there is no space the universe expands into, until it expands into it. For matter and space, and time, are all together. Neither can exist without the other two.

Some men think the universe, coming from consciousness, with Consciousness being the fundamental, expands into nothingness, which then becomes time, space, matter. The nothingness is timeless, for time comes with space and matter.

 

Religions claim that their particular god is perfect, but if after a whopping 4.5 billions years of this earth's existence, of "god" having the opportunity to show us he's perfect, a perfect religious book can not be found, then a good case can be made that no "god" exists. Of course no perfect religious book has ever existed, so when and if they can prove to us to a jury-level of evidence that he exists, then we'll believe them, but in the mean time enjoy your life and don't worry that a magic invisible man in the sky is reading your thoughts - making sure you don't secretly believe in a different super-hero than himself, and will eventually punish you for that. You can relax now - god is not real.