Why do atheists think that religious people are delusional?

And where is the physical proof of other (ALL) universes? Creating a concept of other universes is akin to what Theists are accused of doing.... making stuff up.

 

The difference: we know that universes can exist, because we live in one. But no one has ever seen a God. So you are comparing a thing for which we have an observable example to something for which we do not. To use a fanciful example, it's like the difference between SEEING a unicorn, and thinking, "hey, there might be more!", versus reading a book about a unicorn (a book which also contains talking snakes and donkeys) and then believing in unicorns based off that.

 

Potential energy, which you admitted exists, always existed.

- - - Updated - - -

How is asking a question proof of anything? Funny.

I guess then asking you to give an accurate description of the color of God's eyes, height, weight, skin color, shoe size, etc would be proof he doesn't exist?

 

How did you make that leap? What particular scenario?
There are infinite scenario's available at this time.

 

Holy crap.
You posted the 1st thing ever that is sensible and I agree with it.
Goomba is out of his league with it's either nothing or God as the only 2 options.

 

What's it a byproduct of?
1. Potential energy. There are others?

 

The universe is without beginning or end. The universe is God?
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

 

This makes sense, especially if C Consciousness is called Reality.
Man makes an image of Reality as he understands the world.

The image is called Truth.

 

Oh,...
Good.
And all this time I thought you were stupid.
Crap.

I talk and no one understands, except people I thought were stupid.
But if you agree with me, then we are smart together.
Because we can say we agree with each other.

 

Uh-oh...
That was stupid.

Image a universe with a graph paper covering it.
Each point on the graph paper is a single point.

On mathematics, we say it has 3 dimension, (X, Y, Z).
But this graph paper is just our way of locating places on the graph.

Einstein's Big Bang idea mean that, at some point, (X,Y,Z), all the matter of the universe suddenly poured into the Space which was being made for it.

 

your example is self defeating when considering the lack of a contextual definition (the exact meaning is unknown). Unicorn: see here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H7214&t=KJV

You see, secular logic would almost require someone to use the secular college dictionaries to give definition to the term, however, when using theological terms, it is sometimes better to use a dictionary of theological terms, such as the example cited above.

 

That is just a theory. Based on a singular point in time and the aftermath.
Nothing about a what happened before said singular point. This new math gives an alternative.
I don't profess to understand. But as I told Goomba weeks ago when he says nothing or God are the only alternatives, the alternatives at this time are near infinite.

- - - Updated - - -

It would also be better to use unicorn language when talking about unicorns. So nothing gets lost in translations.

 

Oh really... do you have a tutoring manual that will teach the 'unicorn language' and a 'unicorn dictionary' so as to give meaning to the terminology used in the tutoring manual? No? Then I suppose we will have to stick with dictionaries pertaining to the languages used by humans.

 

OK, but don't whine when we question anything you post on the subject, for in all likelyhood, it was translated wrong.

 

That is a good possibility.. since you did not declare any limitation of what I might say in the future.

 

Way to miss the point. I suspect that, as usual, it was intentional. All in your attempt to remain "incorporeal" (i.e. without substance). The "unicorn" represented alternate universes and God, respectively (which was quite obvious if you know how to use context clues). If the example confused you, then why didn't you just respond to the first part? The part that said, "The difference: we know that universes can exist, because we live in one. But no one has ever seen a God. So you are comparing a thing for which we have an observable example to something for which we do not. " Perhaps that was too clear for you to feign confusion and offer a diversionary definition, so you chose to ignore it.

 

I chose the definition that made the most sense based on your style of argumentation.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 Suffice it to say that my analogy did NOT say that science recognizes the existence of God, and since you are intent on abusing the misinterpretation of it, I shall speak of it no further.

When we see a thing, that greatly increases the probability that there might be other such things, or may have been in the past, compared to something (like God) for which no example has ever been observed. It is a proof of concept. I know that universes are possible; I cannot say the same for gods.

 

Atheists have no scientific proof of the creation of the universe, where we came from , even what life is. They rely on scientists to create hypotheses that have yet to be proven (if they ever can). How is this much different from believing in a Creator?

 

Mainly, the difference is not postulating the existence of magic. This is a good bet because, every time that we came to understand something that we formerly did not understand, we found out that it was NOT MAGIC.

 

You can definitely expect to see some sort of rationalization (making of excuses for their behavior), so hang on tight.

 

I believe that many Christians hold a very literal interpretation of the Bible when it was probably never meant to be interpreted that way. Therein lies the delusion part.

 

No doubt that many do hold that literal interpretation. On the other side of the coin, because a few or many might do as you described, does not mean that casting a stone at the entire group is appropriate. Many non-theists on this forum do cast such stones as a blanket statement against all Christians. But you do make a valid point as it relates to those who might hold such a literal interpretation.

 

It isn't a whole lot different.
But when one boxes in the creator to be this thing described in a book or books, then it becomes a whole lot less likely. Yes, less likely, not 100% ruled out.