You claim that God does not exist, part 2.

using the yardstick of all creation? do you mean, 'stuff exists, therefore god does'? please explain your yardstick, how you use it, and the mechanics of the leap from stuff to god.

if you insist on a particular rule or rules (EVERYTHING is created), then clearly it's you who suspends same, to - evidently, suit your whims. ergo, your position fails.

outside our realm of knowledge? how is it, then, that you know so much about god and god's rules?

- - - Updated - - -

you're employing the definitions you claim are outside your ken. how does that work, when you try to sleep at night? get headaches, do you?

 

Because as a rational thinking human being something must account for all the stuff I see around me. Perhaps you've never given it much thought but God is the only possible answer, even though the answer is quite fantastic and impossible to comprehend.

But I'm sure you have a better explanation...right?

I sleep better, actually, knowing that although I can easily reason a God that still gives me no insights into that God (if indeed there are any to be had). It's a limitation inherent in this life we find ourselves in.

 

you responded to the second part of my comment, but not the first. i.e., you are employing the definitions you claim are outside your knowledge. could you PLEASE explain this incongruity.

 

I'm sure if you went back and looked at both my comments you would see there is no incongruity.

 

breaking this down into three parts ...

something does account for all this stuff. lots of different somethings for all the different stuff. is it laziness and an all too short (according to theists - who shoot for immortality) lifespan which disinclines you to investigate the different somethings?

god is the only possible answer. that's probably a fair observation, if you're 4 years old. just as santa is the only explanation for all those xmas gifts under the tree which magically appear while we sleep.

I have access to the same number of potential explanations (none of which have reached dogmatic conclusion) as do you. this does not make me superior, incidentally. it makes me exactly the same as you.

additionally I'd like to highlight your assertion that god is impossible to comprehend. once again, if that is a MUST, how is it that you know so much about his rules and regs, his likes and dislikes, what he is and isn't, etc etc etc, ad nauseum?

- - - Updated - - -

at no point have you explained how it is that you can employ definitions that you claim our outside your knowledge. please explain using prosaic and clear terms. 'feelings' don't explain how you know something you don't know.

 

excellent point, GP! hopefully our friend will respond

- - - Updated - - -

another great question for our theist friends.

 

Care to be more specific?
Can you account for a universe with countless planets and stars, for instance?

Disingenuous. Adults know where Xmas gifts come from.
Can you tell me where all the stuff that burst from the Big Bang singularity sprang from? Care to posit a guess that would account for such a mind boggling act of creation? Of course you have no idea, like most four year olds.

Then give me one of those "potential explanations".

Whoever said I knew anything about God's "rules and regs, dos and don'ts" etc.? I specifically said just the opposite (#811).

Laugh out loud. It doesn't say much for you when you have to resort to imaginary posts of mine in order to impugn me. It tells me you are desperate to make a dent in the rational position that I hold.

Such as?

And what "feelings" would those be?

 

Do you know of something that doesn't have a cause for being? I don't.

Because the universe is not the same thing as God. There is no reason to believe that because one in preeminent that the other must be also. AND because science can find nothing prior to the singularity.
If a pre-universe is detected someday I'll amend my views.

 

1) I have access to precisely the same information that you do on what science has thus far gathered about our universe. take your pick. incidentally, none of it makes me uncomfortable, and almost all of it fills me with wonder.

2) adults do indeed, know there is a rational explanation for something that seems magical and personally special to a child. a child has quite limited ability to rise above the id, and as adults we tend to cater to this. an id centred being has trouble with the concept that no one is truly 'special'. I have no idea what happened prior to the big bang (nor, obviously, where the 'stuff' came from) and neither do you, but I don't pretend I do know.

3) you constantly refer to god's inscrutability, yet use words like MUST. you also claim a crucial position on gods behalf (he was the first cause).

4) you tell me. if you can explain, in practical terms, how you know something you claim you can't know (that everything has a cause EXCEPT god) then we'll know if and what feelings 'back up' your position.

 

No, I'm not suggesting that is definitively the case, but it certainly could be as much as God always existing could be the case.

Sorry, I jumped the gun. I'll ask this question instead: how do we know the Universe began to exist? The Big Bang wasn't the Universe coming into existence, it was the Universe expanding.

Why can a Universe not exist forever, but a God can?

 

You're trying to compare apples to oranges. Sure, we know that a chair has a cause for its existence. However, using existing materials to create a chair isn't analogous to the Universe being created from nothing.

 

you claim that god doesn't have a cause, remember?

 

Were you there to witness such a event? If not, then where did you obtain the information that leads you to believe such an incredible story? I mean something expanding before it exists?

 

you have just said, multiple times and quite emphatically, that you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GOD IS OR ISN'T. yet here you are, claiming to know REALLY (*)(*)(*)(*)ING IMPORTANT stuff about him/it.

 

The Big Bang was in fact the moment when a massive ejection or explosion of material started expanding into what is Space-Time and is still continuing to expand which is our Universe.

The amount of tangible and physical and even visible evidence for this occurrence is overwhelming and as the Math proves it to be so....there has NEVER in the History of Humanity where the Math details something to exist that it has not.

It is not a story but a reality.

AboveAlpha

 

Did I say that it expanded before it existed? Nope. The Universe, according to the Big Bang theory, was a singularity before it began expanding.

 

Yes, of course. Science can tell us much about the universe...except where it comes from.

But I don't claim to "know" in any definitive way. I have merely used logic and reason to explain what cannot be discovered because it is beyond our ability to know. I can't imagine any other explanation that will do.
Atheists say they do not know who or what created the universe but they definitely know it wasn't God! That seems bizarre to me.

Unless you believe the universe has simply always existed (though the singularity gives very good evidence there was a definite starting point)
then there must be some force that created it. Prove me wrong.

It's simple observation and reason.
If only God is capable of creating the vast universe (and I know of nothing else that could) then does God stand outside of his own creation and rules that govern everything else? It seems reasonable, remembering we are dealing with a supreme being.

 

No, it isn't. So why bring it up as if you've made a point or something?

 

Then where did that "singularity" come from?

 

I know God is the only logical (if we can use that word in this context) explanation for the creation of all we see and know.
You disagree? Give me a better option. That seems simple enough....right?

 

Your argument revolves around "I can't imagine" and "...I know of nothing else...".
Not all that compelling.

 

Not really unless you can provide a viable alternative.
Is "I don't know but I know it's NOT God" more persuasive? Not really.

 

thanks, BB. you just saved me ten minutes of quoting and responding.

as suspected, it all comes down to 'feelings'.

and still no explanation of how he knows something he claims he can't know.

 

Ooooh... I see you like that idea about something being not compelling. Now why do you want to assume the argument that I have used recently regarding the primary definition of 'proof'? Aren't you one of those who wanted and did launch assaults against me for using that argument?

 

has anyone here actually said 'it's definitely not god'?

most atheists would say it's UNLIKELY to be god/s, but to suggest we know enough to exclude all possibility of god/s would be foolish. furthermore, we base our position (unlikely) on the EVIDENCE available at this point in time. not on 'I can't imagine anything else'.