Imagine How Smart I Would Be If I Was an Atheist

As far as scripture saying 'the earth is flat,"

The prophet Isaiah (40:22) spoke of the "circle of the earth."

and,

Solomon wrote, "He [God] set a compass [circle] upon the face of the deep."

as well as,

Job 26:10:

“He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters "

God never said the earth was 'flat,' ppl did.....

 

LOL. You don't see the irony and hypocrisy in saying this, and then immediately following state that you're "tired of hearing atheists say they are so smart"?

Except they're not stupid. You only perceive them to be because they conflict with your deeply held belief.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam and god of the gaps fallacy.

But that's a loaded challenge. You'll never get an answer to that question which satisfies you, as long as you remain a theist.

 

Wait, wait wait...... Even as a very simple observer, every religion declares themselves to be truth, and through their adherence to this declared truth, they are the only ones worthy of God's grace.
Christians within themselves can't even agree what the correct interpretation of this so called truth is; the only thing they come together in agreement with, is that they as a generalized belief are the only one's worthy of God's grace.

We are left to believe that God created this brilliant physical world which is a perfect balance of symbiosis, and then just for the hell of it provided the mind with a highly interpretive and subjective model of truth leading to mass confusion, ambiguity and strife?
The only thing we are left with in such an example is a self purported sense of superiority within a declared elitist state.

I'm not even an atheist, and even I can see the absurdity and hypocrisy in such a statement.

 

I wasn't claiming that God said the Earth was flat. Just that at one point, this is what most humans believed, regardless of the origin of that belief. I was using it as an example of something that was popular, but not true.

 

You can actually draw a circle in the sand, hence, a circle upon the face of the earth does not describe a sphere....
The word ball/sphere is used many times in the bible and would certainly be used if describing the shape of the earth. If we reference this to the many descriptive passages talking about grasping the edges of the earth... Well, we get quite a contrasting view of the earth.
Job 30:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
So what now, the earth is like a rug?

There is an interesting phenomena when we sit "high" above the surface of the earth such as a throne and observe it's landscape.....
If you have ever climbed to the very top of a mountain and looked out into the horizon, even a mind without knowledge of a earth sphere through simple observation, could see a perfect circle surrounding them.
Do we then claim proof that the bible talked about a spherical earth?
The language itself is highly contradictory to that!

 

Quite astounding actually, when you consider that the people of that time had no idea about microwave transmission, they seemed to realize that phenomena as demonstrated by the line of sight. Regardless of where you are standing (or the microwave tower erected) there is still that straight line transmission, which is limited by the 'edges of the earth'.

"Ball" is used one time: Isa 22:18

"Sphere" is used zero times. KJV search.

Ever seen the videos showing the amount of vibration that is encountered by rockets that are being launched? Well what about the people riding in one of those rockets? It would appear that they are being 'shaken out of it' as they try to take hold of the ends of the earth (upper atmosphere just before leaving the environment of earth).

No we don't make such claims about the Bible, because the Bible (KJV) does not use the word "sphere". See above notes on the KJV search.

 

We have no idea what he origins of God are. None.

Once again, you derive unwarrented certitude where none can or should be expected.

What you are doing is no different than saying the Big Bang is not real because we have no idea what came before it. The linkage and break in logic is clear.

Indeed, 3,000 years ago, man had no idea what created the Oceans, but the Ocean was still real and the fisherman were pretty damb glad that it was full of fish. Not knowing the origins of the Ocean did make it any less real - precisely the same point that we have no idea what created the Big Bang, but it obviously happened didn't it?

Again, its simple logic. And why you leap several steps in the logical process to derive unwarranted certitude is beyond me.

Why that certitude leads you to believe, erronenously, that you have it all figured out - that its simple - yet befuddling to mankind for generations - is not a sign of science - its a sign of unwarranted certitude, and you don;t have to be a dick about it.

There is a point here that must be made.

Actual scientists can sit here and discuss these things with a couple of things:

#1 - Politeness and civility.

#2 - Honesty.

So when I see people disagreeing just to be disagreeable, taking known scientific paradigms and twisting them slightly or leaving out key portions of teh theory just to disagree? Coupled with a condescending tone ...

Well, when was the last time you read a science article that began with, "To all my non-logic (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) bag ... well, I won't call them peers, clearly if we just use logic you'd see what morons you all are."

Its doesn't happen anywhere accept with atheists.

After all, I can and indeed have sat down and talked with Buddhists about their creation myth, which both acknowledge in analogous at best, and doen so without going, "Well, clearly you are a non-logical person and your faith is trash that is beyond science! Dimwit!"

Obviously, such behavior and expectations would make me both extremely obtuse and rude in such a setting.

Why the need to be rude and condescending when, as we see, several of your key arguements are not nearly as certain as you think.

16 billion years ago, there was no time. There was no space. The universe is not infinite.

Yet your premise requires mass to be infinite?

There is a fundamental break down in logic in your premise. And yet you lecture anyway?

 

Ok, now these are very simple concepts here.....
If God created all things, how could God have created himself if he didn't already exist?
Hence, the only conclusion to be had in such simple deductive reasoning is that in order for God to exist at all..... God had to have always existed!
Not too riveting where logic and reason is concerned.....
Wait, who's trying to twist and contort things here?

 

We have no idea. The creation of teh Creator is beyond teh creation of teh universe - and science cannot explain the orgins of Creation itself.

Again with the double standards.

Did God have to always exist? Or, given linear constraints that are revealed in creation of teh universe did he just have to exist before the Big Bang.

Do we know what anything existed as before the Big Bang? Do we KNOW how teh universe will end and what happens next?

Agh, but you derive certatude from a totally unsupported opinion because you have deduced a totally unsupported inference from - well, if it was before - then it must have always been there!

Let me show you something.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html

What you are doing is known as teh questionable cause fallacy. That something exists whose orgins we are totally uncertain of ... and yet, just as charged, you derive unwarranted certainty - and a condescending tone - from something that we clearly cannot even postulate as anything other than a guess.

The correct wording of your arguementation begins with IF not BECAUSE.

Its simple logic.

 

But science has a 'well-documented explanation' of the expanding universe at its present accelerated rate by bringing in (while shrugging their shoulders) dark matter and dark energy. Cant see it...but we know that it's there! And they say that they can measure the universe to validate that it must be there---likewise, the Believer can find proof of God manifesting in their lives and by what they 'measure' spiritually! Sounds very similar to the theologian's explanation of "God," huh?!! But dark et al is acceptable, where God is not.

 

If mass is in a constant state of expansion, what is it filling if it is not the space that is created by it, and where is it bound beyond it's own mechanics?
The concept of infinity has many attributes that also include the void.
HMMMMMMM!

If mass has always existed, much like the example given of a God... Time is infinite and we are discussing only the mechanics within it.

Where have I ever declared an absolute? I actually have many problems with what is declared in the feeble attempt to bring the universe into a finite point.... A beginning that subsequently never ends?
In order for it to work, I couldn't even begin to comprehend it unless it was within itself a continuum where it once again becomes that declared point of 'beginning'.

Why do you think I walked away from quantum mechanics and it's pure indulgence of provided numbers, theorems, equations and value?
Enter primeval atom..... Wait, come again?
If you weren't hell bent on being a complete (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to anyone who doesn't adhere to your defined and declared point of a beginning, well, we might be able to carry on a meaningful discussion.

 

Once again - do we know that the universe is going to continue to expand into infinity?

Isn't that impossible without infinite eneregy and mass? Is that what you are claiming? That mass is constant because it is infinite?

Its pretty simple the universe is finite because it has a beginning. Yet your postulate states that mass is infinite in terms of existence - which is not possible in a finite universe.

If that is being an jerk, then you have no idea how science works. And I get this all the time from increasingly rude atheists, whose behavior lessens in direct prportions to their accusations of rudeness in others.

The main postulate of your 'proof' is a known untruth.

Like I said, If rather than certitude. And you were certain .... and wrong. And pointing it out does not make anyone rude - it just makes you thin skinned when respond teh way you do and treat people the way you do.

As I said, the genesis of atheism is not science - its arrogance.

And its why most theologians consider atheism to be self worship. Again, what blackie calls unwarranted certitude and ... as we see, the lack of a valid alternative theory.

Infinite magic.

Well, doesn't infinit magic require a magician?

 

There is an argument to be made for energy/mass being infinite. Also, a beginning does not preclude infinity. Hell, constraints don't even preclude infinity. There are an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1. Those numbers are constrained by the limit values of 0 and 1, but those numbers are still infinite.

 

Ok, now we are getting somewhere..... I drew a model of this as a young man and struggled with it for years, it covered every wall to it's very edges.... eh hem!

As matter is drawn in to itself within a black hole, it emits radiant energy in every direction that produces a lattice effect surrounding all matter, and more importantly every galaxy..... This collective mass of energy that is emitted has enough mass to keep the universe in a constant state of expansion.... A balance if you will.... The major question I always had was in it's temporal view of a much grander picture...
Take a single cell within this vast universe and investigate it.... The center of a galaxy is constantly losing mass to the emissions of radiant energy which keeps it at some what of a 'constant', the amount of mass that enters is however proportionately much greater.... By the mechanics alone, it will reach a static point and beyond where the mass at the center is much to great for the matter immediately surrounding it to overcome, It will begin to consume at an exponential rate until in a flash, plank state.... It begins again in the formation of a new galaxy in a violent explosion.... A galaxy is consuming it's own matter, not to difficult to observe this.
The important aspect of thought to this is that it is losing it's mass to dark matter/energy; even within the violent explosion itself where it is reborn, not all of it's mass is reconstituted into matter but lost to this energy. Considering billions and billions of rebirths of a galaxy, it begins to diminish in it's production of physical matter becoming pure energy mass in the expanding space surrounding.... As it diminishes becoming this energy mass, we then have to ask.... "How does this energy begin to react upon itself?"
For the model alone, consider a universe that contains zero matter, only energy mass..... As I discussed in the smaller model of a single galaxy, it itself reaches a static state where it begins to draw it's mass into it's center where it recreates itself.... I could only conclude that this energy mass would also reach such a static state well before all the physical matter which is the 'radiant expander' was diminished.

 

All of this is actually true. Which is why high IQ does not necessarily equal wisdom or even knowledge. It's good to see someone admitting the flaws of the common atheist.

 

This was always lovely and expansive to my mind, a focal brilliance in thought to my own expressive potential..... If I were to venture to say....If God exists, I couldn't have asked for a more brilliant example!

 

Enter primeval atom