Something For Atheists to Consider

Yeah...you really are.

Don't you get tired of claiming victories you have not earned?

I am not trying to avoid anything...and you have definitely not painted me into a corner. (Screwed up story that, isn't it?)

Let's discuss the salient points:

I do not know if this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation or not.

If it is, a creator god is a good bet.

If it isn't...then it doesn't seem there are are gods.

There is no way you can come to "it is more likely that there are no gods" using reason, logic, science, or math. Which is why you have not even attempted to do it. By the same token, there is no way the other guy can come to "it is more likely that there is at least one god than none" using reason, logic, science, or math.

YOU BOTH ARE GUESSING. And in the opposite direction. It truly is hilarious to watch.

Deal with any of those things I just mentioned rather than doing the atheist tango...Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Schplorken, FSM...!

What we know is that you are diverting...because you cannot handle the actual argument. Typical atheistic nonsense.

Hey...it is entertaining.

 

Whether you "need" one or not, do you have one? I'm just curious, as you seem open to the possibility that all this just happened with no original cause or source.

 

Nope.

You are dodging frank. You can't honestly deal with the analogy because you know it makes your setument look absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I don't have one. Nobody does.

That's what the evidence shows to date.

 

Science makes no such claim. It merely states that there is probability based on observation and extrapolation.....YOU are making this claim with no data beyond imagined reality.

 

You really are. (I guess we start this nonsense again.)

My setument is not absurd...I think.

In any case, my argument is sound.

No dodging needed. I honestly do not know if this thing we call "the universe" is a creation or not.

 

Okay...
Whatever you have to tell yourself. I'm certainly not going to waste my time arguing over this.

We can be sure our universe did not exist, as it sprang out of the big bang singularity but you seem to think you know differently and are making a claim no scientist anywhere is willing to make.
That's sort of your style, it seems, insisting you know better in spite of everything.

 

I am not dictating anything to you Frank so grow up and stop pretending that I am. If you want to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan at me for being a little bit snarky while at the same time you are not extending the courtesy of being open and honest with the forum about your definitions then the hypocrisy of that is there for all too see. I merely hold a mirror up for you, it is you that has to look at the reflection.

So, tell me, are we having an internet forum discussion right now or an academic one or are you leaving it to everyone to guess for you as to what kind of discussion we are having?

 

Scientists say that statistically there MUST be intelligent alien life out there, so maybe we should start modernising our thinking and start regarding "God" as an alien.
Jesus called him "the Creator", so maybe he created the earth and other planets as "Genesis Projects"?
Note the plural- "God made the worlds.." (Hebrews 11:3 KJV)

 

If anyone is interested, I managed to prove to myself that God, at least the kind of God we in the West visualize, cannot possibly exist. If you'd like to see the logical progression that I went through to reach that decision, I can send you a PDF of my writings. It's 46 pages long and essentially stream of consciousness regarding what I could figure out based on my ability to think about my own existence, and I actually started out with the intention of proving God's existence, but managed to prove the opposite. If you'd like to pay me $3 for it, that would be nice, but not necessary.

 

Stop being so insulting, William...if you can.

As I said...stop being so insulting, if you can.

When you answer my questions of earlier...we can continue, William.

I hope you do.

 

Our universe is made up of the energy and matter is it composed of. Prior to the Big Bang, our universe was the Singularity.

 

The Australian aborigines religion calls the creation the "Dreamtime"
And in the 60,000 years they have been practicing their religion they have never killed a single person who didn't believe.
The religious genocide only began when the first Christian Europeans invaded Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_of_Indigenous_Australians

If that's what your invisible man is all about, you can keep him/it.

 

That's rich and sort of like saying all those assorted auto parts, body panels, electronics, engine blocks, wheels, etc. laying at a Ford auto plant somewhere are an Escort even though they are nothing before they are assembled out of their random order into a specific identifiable working automobile.

 

Except our universe isn't a static thing. It is constantly in flux and changing.

 

Yes, the universe is still expanding in the aftermath of the big bang which says nothing about it prior to that instant of creation.
To say our universe existed prior to that event is a lie and a complete distortion of the facts. Yes, there was something in that singularity but to claim it was our universe is again like claiming that pile of rubber, metal, gears, parts and whathaveyou in a Ford plant is an automobile.

It definitely is not!

 

Actually it would be like claiming that ice which boiled off and became steam is still water.

 

Ice and steam ARE just water in different forms. So what's your point? Or is there one at all? I don't see it.
An individual sperm and an ovum will become a human being in time, if all goes well, but they, in their component parts, are not a human being themselves!
I hope you are following along.

And the cooked compressed elements enclosed in a singularity will become our universe, that expands to this day. But in and of itself, there is no "universe" before the universe. There certainly was no universe as we know it today.

Atheists love to claim otherwise because it precludes someone claiming that the universe was created at the unleashing
of the Big Bang but they have no leg to stand on.

There should be a more honest way to make their point. And if there isn't, perhaps they have no point to make.

 

And the matter and energy that make up the universe are the universe just in different forms. When all that energy was compressed into a singularity, it was still the universe.

 

The Euros went after certain groups who'd been attacking whites, seems fair to me!
PS- are you Australian? If you feel sorry for them you can always give them their land back..

 

You have to remember just because someone calls himself a christian does not make him on. You pointed out people in Australia being massacred. I could point out the christian crusades slaughtered the jews when they took over towns in the middle east and even greedily took control of Byzantium for awhile. That does not make them a christian. Even the pope started out as just a person and only became the pope after everyone thought he somehow with God's help killed Attila the Hun who died of natural causes. I have a ancestor named Thomas Carman who was burned alive at the cross in England because his protestant christian views conflicted with the catholic christian views. My point is just because a bunch of people say they are christians or do something and try to justify it for God does not mean they are true christians.

You can't reject God because of a few bad apples. The world is full of Sin and Satan will do anything he can to turn people away from God. If someone dedicates his life to God and Jesus and follows the ten commandments then you have a true christian. People claiming to be for God that go around killing other people are not for God.

There were some chapters in the bible where God made it ok like in some of the battles etc.

 

An automobile crushed into a giant metallic cube at the wrecker's yard is no longer an automobile. It is just a giant rusting metallic cube...period!

No matter how you squirm, equivocate and dodge the thing encapsulated by the singularity was not the universe. On a purely scientific level and in spite of what some of the atheists her claim there was nothing that can be detected before the big bang expansion and nothing that could be called the universe though the thing that became the universe did evolve from the singularity:
According to their calculations (Hawking, Ellis, Penrose), time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy." The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

You can play a rhetorical game but nothing that we would see as the universe existed before the universe itself.

 

Why do you keep conflating something function with its makeup?

Did you notice that quote in that link (the part about nothing existing prior to the Big Bang) is the product of that author and not any scientific paper?

If "nothing" existed, then by all means, present evidence for this supposed "nothing".

 

nope. and I don't think correcting you is nonsense.

your statement. sorry about the typo, hard to do on an iphone.

your argument was defeated.

I don't either. We are discussing the likelihood of a god or gods existing and the analogy showing your argument is absurd.

 

ok. there's nothing to argue about. your argument defeats itself because your premise is based on a logical fallacy.

uh, no. YOU are making the claim that nothing existed prior to the big bang. That is a statement no scientist anywhere is making. which is why you can't quote one.

no, my style is to point out reality. and here in reality, you are making baseless assertions you can not support with evidence.

 

this is a baseless assertion you can in no way support with evidence.