question for athiests

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
thefanwithnoname said:
the question is why take assumptions as fact when it suits?
Click to expand...

Your thought process is as follows, which BTW is quite normal and rational:

1. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning in time.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
4. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
5. Therefore, god exists.


1. Premise 1 conflicts with quantum mechanics because, as we have seen, quantum electrodynamics claims that subatomic particles can come into existence through a vacuum fluctuation. These particles have a beginning in time, but they have no cause because vacuum fluctuations are purely random events. Such particles, then, serve as a counterexample to premise 1.

2 conflicts with relativity theory because the general theory of relativity claims that there was no time before there was a universe. Time and the universe are coterminous-they came into existence together. This finding of Einstein's was anticipated by Augustine who proclaimed, "The world and time had both one beginning. The world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time." If there was no time before there was a universe, the universe can't have a beginning in time.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
How does my answer defeat the purpose of the OP?
I don't accept any of the current theories.
That's an answer.
I don't have to offer one of my own.

Well the OP was 'please could you explain your theories on the beginning of creation'
make of that what you will

What have I mocked by rejecting every current answer as unproven?

do you not mock those that believe in religion/god?

No, it doesn't.
What's the point of origin/creator of the universe or matter?
If you claim god is, then what's the point of origin/creator of god?

can you actually point to anything that doesnt have a point of origin or creator?


The big bang doesn't suggest that there's a creating force at all.
It says that the universe was once in a super dense and hot state, before it expanded.

where did it come from?

As far as we know, nothing has ever been created.

really? so things arise out of nothing?


You weren't talking from my perspective.
You said that you couldn't accept not having an answer, so you've taken god to be that answer.

the response was based on your perspective. This isnt about 'God' as such, its about a creator.

Reproduction and creation are not the same thing.
We have evidence for one of them.

we have 'evidence' for both based on what we know. you choose to accept one not the other

Our existence is not evidence of a creator.
This is absolute drivel.

without a source there is no existence, that is fact

If you accept that is true, then who created god, as his existence is clearly evidence of a creator and who created the creature that created god?
That goes on forever and doesn't make any sense in the first place.

as the created we dont know this, doesnt mean it negates a creator does it? We have had this discussion.

And this grass eating, third eye-lidded man looked like what, exactly?

who mentioned grass eating? and not a monkey. do monkeys have a third eye?

The development of man from...?

eh?

Yes, it is.
Look it up.

I think you need to explore this more. The pink thing in the corner that we now have is hardly an 'eyelid'


None of the parts of the eye are useless outside of the sum.
Please feel free to say what they are, if you believe otherwise.

one element of the eye without the sum of its parts is useless. All have to be present for it to function. If one was created first then natural selection would have no use for it making it void and should disappear.

How do you explain the eye's blind spot, by the way?
Did god miss a bit?

I dont/didnt. like the examples I gave you earlier (spleen gall bladder) just because we dont know doesnt mean there is a reason/point


Read the whole article, rather than skimming it and totally missing the point, then you might know.

or you could just explain. I read and responded accordingly.

Not with your answer, it isn't.
Then we have to go back to how god came into existence which, according to your train of thought, would require a creator, who would also require a creator and so on.
Click to expand...

so? the debate is how we got here. not what created us.
 
So the debate isn't about religion now? Why start a thread aimed at trying to get atheists to suggest how we all got here then dismiss every post that puts forward a possible answer?

Most believe that the Big Bang started the universe as we know it. Your position is that to start something there had to be a catalyst hence something or someone that created it all. Judging by your proclivities you must assume Allah/God kicked it all off. Most scientists believe the universe is around 13 million years old, the prophet Mohammad (adjust spelling to your liking) was around roughly 1500 years ago.

You believe in a version of the world and the universe according to the teachings of Mohammad in the Koran (adjust spelling to your liking) and have previously quoted chapter and verse to explain why that is.

Why do you want to know how the universe started? Why ask atheists? If you are a Muslim (adjust spelling to your liking) then you do not need proof if you have faith. To have to ask why means you have doubt, if you have doubt then you seem to be questioning your faith. If the good book doesn't have the answers to your questions is the book wrong or are you just asking the wrong questions?
 
xumanah said:
I'm not trying to make you believe in what I believe but you must be open to both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...

There aren't two sides to the argument. The fact is that even the greatest scientists don't know how the the universe was created and they don't claim to know. They have theories.
On the other hand religious people claim they know based only on ancient writings (much of which have been scientifically proved to be false) They base their argument on faith alone because that is the last refuge of those that hide from reality and evidence. At the end of the day many religious people bury their heads in the sand, because to do otherwise would be to confess they have lived their lives as fools following a childish myth.
 
GroveRanger said:
So the debate isn't about religion now? Why start a thread aimed at trying to get atheists to suggest how we all got here then dismiss every post that puts forward a possible answer?

Most believe that the Big Bang started the universe as we know it. Your position is that to start something there had to be a catalyst hence something or someone that created it all. Judging by your proclivities you must assume Allah/God kicked it all off. Most scientists believe the universe is around 13 million years old, the prophet Mohammad (adjust spelling to your liking) was around roughly 1500 years ago.

You believe in a version of the world and the universe according to the teachings of Mohammad in the Koran (adjust spelling to your liking) and have previously quoted chapter and verse to explain why that is.

Why do you want to know how the universe started? Why ask atheists? If you are a Muslim (adjust spelling to your liking) then you do not need proof if you have faith. To have to ask why means you have doubt, if you have doubt then you seem to be questioning your faith. If the good book doesn't have the answers to your questions is the book wrong or are you just asking the wrong questions?
Click to expand...

the OP was self explanatory. I wanted to know athiests theories. It was a result of what i saw to be mocking and self importance on some religion threads
Its good to know what others think

It appears to have gone back to prove god exists. which imo is the athiests safe ground.

For the purpose of debate I felt it best to leave religion (as in christianity, Islam etc) out of it as it detracts from the key issue.
Basically 'proof of a creator' or not. Religion etc is a later debate imo
 
xumanah said:
Your thought process is as follows, which BTW is quite normal and rational:

1. Everything that had a beginning in time has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning in time.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
4. The only thing that could have caused the universe is god.
5. Therefore, god exists.


1. Premise 1 conflicts with quantum mechanics because, as we have seen, quantum electrodynamics claims that subatomic particles can come into existence through a vacuum fluctuation. These particles have a beginning in time, but they have no cause because vacuum fluctuations are purely random events. Such particles, then, serve as a counterexample to premise 1.

2 conflicts with relativity theory because the general theory of relativity claims that there was no time before there was a universe. Time and the universe are coterminous-they came into existence together. This finding of Einstein's was anticipated by Augustine who proclaimed, "The world and time had both one beginning. The world was made, not in time, but simultaneously with time." If there was no time before there was a universe, the universe can't have a beginning in time.
Click to expand...

no
 
Most of us have left religion out of it and provided you with a number of points about 'proof of a creator' but you seem unable to grasp what people are saying.
 
thefanwithnoname said:
Well the OP was 'please could you explain your theories on the beginning of creation'
Click to expand...

And my answer was to dispute the accuracy of the question, which you've accepted was inaccurate.

thefanwithnoname said:
do you not mock those that believe in religion/god?
Click to expand...

By asking them to prove that their beliefs are grounded in reality?
How is that mockery?

thefanwithnoname said:
where did it come from?
Click to expand...

Why did it have to come from anywhere?

thefanwithnoname said:
really? so things arise out of nothing?
Click to expand...

No.
We've yet to prove that matter or energy can be created or destroyed.
They do change form, though.

thefanwithnoname said:
the response was based on your perspective. This isnt about 'God' as such, its about a creator.
Click to expand...

No, it clearly wasn't based upon my perspective and your name for this creative force is irrelevant.

thefanwithnoname said:
we have 'evidence' for both based on what we know. you choose to accept one not the other
Click to expand...

What evidence do we have for things being created?


thefanwithnoname said:
without a source there is no existence, that is fact
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.
It's a claim.

thefanwithnoname said:
as the created we dont know this, doesnt mean it negates a creator does it? We have had this discussion.
Click to expand...

And I've pointed out repeatedly why it defeats your own claim, yet you choose not to see it.

thefanwithnoname said:
who mentioned grass eating? and not a monkey. do monkeys have a third eye?
Click to expand...

Wisdom teeth were for grinding down plant tissue.
A third eye-lid isn't for another eye.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nictitating_membrane
Nobody claims that we evolved from monkeys, either.


thefanwithnoname said:
one element of the eye without the sum of its parts is useless. All have to be present for it to function. If one was created first then natural selection would have no use for it making it void and should disappear.
Click to expand...

All of this is utterly untrue and more evidence that you're a creationist, as it's a standard creationist argument.
They call it irreducible complexity and it's been thoroughly debunked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Eye

Note that they refer to your Darwin's Eye bullshit from earlier, too.

thefanwithnoname said:
or you could just explain. I read and responded accordingly.
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't and I'd be wasting my time repeating it here.
Read it again and then you might understand why your quotes were ridiculous.

thefanwithnoname said:
so? the debate is how we got here. not what created us.
Click to expand...

And your answer isn't actually an answer.
How did we get here?
God did it.
How did god get here?
His god did it, etc.

It doesn't tell us anything.
 
StereoTypist said:
Most of us have left religion out of it and provided you with a number of points about 'proof of a creator' but you seem unable to grasp what people are saying.
Click to expand...

its not a case of grasping what people are saying
its not accepting it if anything.

eg i grasp the idea of giving to charities
i dont give to some as i know they dont give all the money to the intended
some call this uncharitable/tight fisted etc

yet i give to the needy
 
thefanwithnoname said:
its not a case of grasping what people are saying
its not accepting it if anything.

eg i grasp the idea of giving to charities
i dont give to some as i know they dont give all the money to the intended
some call this uncharitable/tight fisted etc

yet i give to the needy
Click to expand...

Well, there's nothing left to say then is there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back