Imagine How Smart I Would Be If I Was an Atheist

Never what the big bang theory has claimed, sorry!

 

Oh, the Big Bang theory claims that there was a definitive amount of mass and eneregy prior to its creation does it? And that this was predestined to explode into a closed system that it would create all by itself - and then magically create mass rather than simply radiate and diffuse in heat.

All this matter and eneregy HAD to be created.

Its unavoidable. The system HAD to be created.

If something is here - it MUST have had an origin.

Its why Einstein could not imagine the universe without God. Pretty simple.

 

Mass is effectively a form of energy, like how heat is a form of energy. That's what E=mc^2 is all about. If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then the same holds true for mass.

If you don't have to explain where your god comes from, then I don't have to explain where the energy comes from. And, again, it didn't turn into mass. It turned into matter. You seem to be thinking that the two (mass and matter) are the same. They aren't.

We don't know what existed before the big bang. Why couldn't the energy and mass have existed prior?

 

If it existed before? Where did it come from?

I don;t have to epxlain where God comes from - I only have to demonstrate the need fro a Creator - which is done.

All this - HAD to have an origin - its unavoidable.

And you can dance all you wish - insist that the universe is a closed system (while your pals - as you know - in another thread about entrophy advocate that the system is open), but you have one unavoidable fact.

At some point mass and energy HAVE to be created.

Otherwise - you are claiming that magic just made it all appear? And that doesn't lead you to a Creator at all?

Liek I said, atheism is not rational.

BTW - please stop with eth double standards - it is you atheists asking us to explain what happened before the Big Bang - when we know that science cannot answer that question.

But then, when we deal with the reality of pure eneregy coming into the universe - you want to argue that? While demanding we explain where God came from?

the ever changing standards of atheism are truely amazing.

At some point, you just have to sit back and marvel at the arguement from absurdity.

 

And back to the ridiculous beginning and the first point I brought up...

Where is God's origin, or did God always exist?

 

Why does everything have to have an origin, except for your god?

I don't necessarily think that the universe is a closed system. There's some indication that there are multiple universes.

As far as mass and energy being created, every indication we have is that they can't be created or destroyed. So why can't they have always existed?

Am I asking you to explain where your god came from? No. I'm asking why your god doesn't have to have an origin, but mass/energy do.

 

What came before the Big Bang? Oh wait, I have to answer the untestable and impossible.

You don; have to answer anything at all.

You can be right because mass and eneregy are here without any source whatsoever.

So, there is no God --- because young atheists believe in magic. Gotcha.

 

And likewise, if mass has always existed and in fact proves itself in it's physical tangible state that it can neither be created or destroyed, do we have to explain where it comes from?

And where have you demonstrated the need for a creator, because you said so?

 

I didn't say God did not have an origin, I said it is well beyond our ability to even accurately hypothesize - like what came before thee Big Bang?

Is there a need for you to constantly demean yourself by deliberately misquoting people?

Does that make you right?

Or emotional?

Only if the system is closed. If the system is open, eneregy and mass can be both added and subtracted.

Basically, you are hedging your bets --

and Blackie's point about unwarranted certitude is spot on. You'll treat the universe as both open and closed - just to deny God.

 

Sorry. So do you think god had an origin?

Adding and subtracting are not creation and destruction.

 

Agh, so the Big Bang is wrong. All this was not created. Its just always been here and teh Big Bang is wrong. By fundamentally misapplying a rule that comes into effect AFTER creation and the laws of the universe are set (the multiverse which Burz refers to above, indicates that many universes are governed by a completely different set of rules), and with the unproven assumption that this is a closed system ...

why, the universe is just magic.

So there is no God. Because we have magic instead.

We know the orgins of energy and mass - its the Big Bang - it WAS created.

 

No reputable scientist thinks that energy and mass were created by the big bang.

 

Obviously he does.

And yes, removing or adding is the same thing as creation or destruction in a system that is governed by the addition of substraction of a governing variable.

You should know this.

In fact, if these variables are needed to be constant - which is what you are saying - the only way to add or subtract more would be through creation and destruction.

Indeed - its why the Big Bang makes sense as a Creation narrative doesn't it?

Either that - or all this is just magic.

 

They all do.

That is the creation of universe. That is why everything is here.

It is the CREATION narrative - the origins of the universe.

All you are doing is this:



But by al means, you go ahead and show me where scientists think that the Big Bang was NOT the creation event for the universe? Go right ahead.

I notice you never disagree with any science theory any atheist ever writes - no matter how looney. But you will deny the Big Bang in front of a Christian?

Why do atheists insist on telling me they are logical?

 

Look, plain and simple.... There is no proof either way... Mass is tangible, we CAN examine and test it's mechanics.... OK! And?

If you feel something within you, and conclude that things are just a bit to magnificent and perfectly brilliant to have come from chaos.... Declare it for yourself!
If God exists, what if 'he' was so expansive that 'he' could speak to the individuality of discovery in every life?..... If it was a personal experience, then what would we have to prove? What would we have to interpret? Wait, what would we have to argue about?

Proof? No, look at what is going on.... Declarations! Ego! Ugliness! Foolishness!

Is this the position we would be asked to take from a God that has created all this brilliance?

Intellect, what ever it desires to attribute life to, it is better than this! Seriously!

 

From the perspective of those in the universe, addition and subtraction are the same as creation/destruction. That isn't the reality of the situation for the energy/mass itself, though. It's just flow. We used to perceive the "destruction" of energy in the form of heat dissipation. It's just a matter of perspective.

You should know this.

Or energy/mass flow between universes. We might perceive it as creation and destruction because we can't observe anything outside of our own universe. That doesn't mean it was actually created or destroyed.

 

The creation event for this universe and the creation event for energy/mass are not the same thing. Every reputable theory about the big bang states that energy was released by it, not created. Here is one example from CERN, stating that the big bang "flung energy in all directions." It doesn't say anywhere that the energy was created.

 

No, there is certitude.

Indeed, you shoved it down blackie throat just a few minutes ago.

Now, you are not so certain?

All this matter that exists has no origins? Except, the universe is not finite - it was created in the Big Bang.

You are simply wrong. And exactly as charged, you derived unwarranted certainty, and were frankly a dick about it, just like blackie charged.

 

Right, the stuff just appeared ... so you believe in magic ... not the Big Bang as the creation event - when it suits you.

Gotcha.

And if you read that, what comes before this expansion process starts? No idea - but came from somewhere.

Like I said, you leave off key bits just to deny God.

Something put that little ball of pure energy, which had no mass at all initially, there - it had an origin. )I am wagering you are not even going to attempt to mention teh assyemtirc CREATION of matter and anti-matter are you?)

And you keep trying to find a way to dodge that reality.

Its quite simple. and equally simply avoided.

Prior to the Big Bang - there is nothing - no time, no space, no universe, no laws, no nothing.

So tell me - do you see a lot of magically exploding universes out there? Something upon which you can hang your hat with certitude? Something you would like to take on Einstein about? Who believed that God was necessary for the universe to be here? Anything?

Do you understand the point about unwarranted certitude yet?

 

Why can't mass/energy always have existed? I don't understand why this is an unreasonable belief. And why do I have to know the origin of the universe in order to not believe in gods, but you can believe in your god without knowing his/her/its origin?

 

Saying there is extreme problems concerning simple reasoning within the question itself is me shoving it down his throat?

If you recall, I asked if there is a God, how did 'he' get there?

God always existed?

Yes, and there it is..... Exactly identical to what mass and it's mechanics display..... A conclusion to this based upon empirical data is that mass has always existed! Has anyone defined the model? We are intelligent enough to know that the model we are speaking of is an infinite one; do we expect the mind to be able to wrap itself around that?

Again it's very simple logic; the absence of definitive proof in one model doesn't automatically prove the other to be true; hence the extreme flaw in logic pertaining to the question itself!

 

Those good ole arguments of 'cause and effect'. With regard to the birth of the universe... who really knows? However, because there are logical fallacies pertaining to 'cause and effect' it can be presumed that there must be an answer that is logically sound. Now don't everybody jump up at the same time:
who has the right argument and supporting data?

 

And oh so humble - jebus would be proud!

Or could I summarise your post as "some bloke on da interwebz claims to be a genious and we have as much evidence of this as we do in god"?

The latter I think...

 

"Most atheists"? I have never seen anyone say this. Please provide an example of just one atheist on this forum saying this.

Ironically, you're the only one who keeps calling us such things as "super genius's".

All.

None.

Though I won't expect you to understand that, as you refuse to even grasp the basic meaning/concept of atheism.

(Notice I said "refuse". I'm sure you are capable of it, you just won't.)

Nothing at all - it is an incredibly simple concept. Which is why it's so difficult to understand when there are some, such as yourself, who just won't/can't grasp it.

Except that those "excuses and double standards" which you perceive stem from your basic lack of understanding of atheism itself, which means that they don't actually exist but in your mind.

I shouldn't have to. See, it has already been explained to you in great detail, ad nauseam, by countless people (including myself) on this forum. I'm sure it'll just turn into your usual long drawn-out fallacious nonsense ignore, but here it is again, as simple as it can be made...

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. It's not a claim, but simply the rejection of your claim that a god exists, due to a lack of evidence.

Now queue your canned responses of "cop out", "because you say so", "belief that there is no god", "there is evidence, it's just inconclusive and here is a link", "preponderance", etc. Did I forget anything?

Save it. They've all be summarily refuted and no one needs or wants to hear it again. Most of your nonsense could be avoided if you would simply understand "lack of belief in a god or gods".

Haven't you noticed that every actual atheist (and even some theists) tries to tell you that you're wrong and explain it to you? But it must be you who is correct and everyone else is wrong? And you call me arrogant?

No you don't. The second they say anything that disagrees with "Neutral's ultimate truth", even if completely polite, you immediately thrust yourself into mouth-foaming derision, ad homs, and twist every nuance of their statements into an endless stream of straw men in order to better denigrate and form your attacks. I've seen it. You seem to think that simple disagreement and benign criticism are insults. They're not - toughen up and get over yourself.

Remember that whole "golden rule" thing? You instigate all the "less than polite" statements used by people when responding to you. Not everyone lets people walk all over them the way that you do with your comments. Some people will give it right back. But at that point, somehow you are the victim? Give me a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing break.

I've given you this advice before, but you didn't take it - if you treated people better, you would get treated better. It's as simple as that.

See, there you go again with your dishonesty. That is not what I said. Everything about this statement is just wrong.

All of those things, except a lack of evidence.

It doesn't start out that way. Things get emotional when you act like ... well ... the way you do, and absolutely refuse to listen to any voice but your own, when you are just so completely wrong about so much.

(Before your inevitable straw man - I did not say that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong about everything, I'm only referring to you, and not just because I say so, but as explained by so many.)

Like your arguments? Ooh, do I win a prize?

Except I/we haven't. You keep presenting something and calling it evidence, but it doesn't meet proper standards and can be dismissed.

Because it's not just inconclusive, but rather it does not meet adequate standards to even qualify as scientific evidence in the first place.

Right, because it's not arrogant to claim "this all-powerful being created an entire universe with a whole planet, special, just for us - and when we die, we get to go spend eternity with him", yet somehow it is to respond with, "that's a pretty extraordinary claim - I'm going to need some empirical evidence to back that up"?

Get real.

 

Popularity does not make something true.

Remember "the world is flat" and "Zeus causes lightning"? Yeah.

Nope, just simple delicious logic.

As I've already pointed out, it seems to be only a few theists who keep saying these things and attributing them to atheists, yet I don't actually see atheists saying them.

I (and I believe most atheists) recognize that a religious person can be completely intelligent and perfectly logical and rational, but for some reason when it comes to this one issue (religion), logic and rationality go out the window.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts

We do?