An interesting thought just occured to me. I imagine that when people think of Atheism and Religion, they can't really see how they could go together.

According to most religions, the central god-figure is what caused everything to come into existence. Now, if "God" caused everything to exist, then he obviously couldn't have existed. Now, if we define existence as anything which has to obey certain physical laws, then wouldn't it stand to reason that something non-existent doesn't have to obey these laws?

So there you go. We now have a deity who is able to create a rock so large he isn't able to lift it, then go ahead and lift it, simply by virtue of his non-existence! Not to mention we also have a universe which doesn't have to worry about proving how an existing "God" could be.

Now, if "God" caused everything to exist, then he obviously couldn't have existed.
Correct.


Now, if we define existence as anything which has to obey certain physical laws
No. If "something" exists, then it exists whether it breaks our known physical laws or not.


then wouldn't it stand to reason that something non-existent doesn't have to obey these laws?
Scientific laws aren't 'obeyed' like legal laws. Why would you have to worry about something non-existent obeying laws? Makes no sense. Are you saying you believe in God yet He doesn't exist?

he isn't able to lift it, then go ahead and lift it
Think about what you just said.

simply by virtue of his non-existence!
Think about that too.

Not to mention we also have a universe which doesn't have to worry about proving how an existing "God" could be.
Of course something incapable of worrying doesn't worry.

You're forgetting the atheistic religions.

There are Godless variants of Buddhism.

God is Real, but only in the minds of crazy religious people.

God is Real, but only in the minds of crazy religious people.

GARBLE GARBLE, I am the Son of the Holy Father, GARBLE GARBLE!

man i bet chuck norris could beat up this god guy

lol.

the argument that he created existence, so where did he come from? as a rebuttal to the possibility of a god shows limited intellect. quite simply, its could be said with reason that something else existed before our universe did. but thats just a minor matter.

im not too concerned myself about everything melding together, because with 6 billion ppl itll never happen. im far more interested in, and concerned with, peaceful, respectful cohabitation. intolerance is the root of the problem, and theres enough to go around to every POV.

hating and obsessing cant be that happy of a life, can it?

There are Godless variants of Buddhism.

I'm almost certain buddhists do not believe in a creator god.

Anirak

Your logic is completely retarded, obviously God exists. God created everything -- except himself.

God has always existed, so he doesn't need to be "created" and can never be destroyed. (Revelation 1:8)

You can know God exists because his creations are everywhere and the book he wrote (the bible) has been correct with all of it's predictions so far, and will be correct for all of the predictions that haven't yet come to pass.

Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Your logic is completely retarded, obviously God exists. God created everything -- except himself.

God has always existed, so he doesn't need to be "created" and can never be destroyed. (Revelation 1:8)

You can know God exists because his creations are everywhere and the book he wrote (the bible) has been correct with all of it's predictions so far, and will be correct for all of the predictions that haven't yet come to pass.

Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I think this is a joke. Are you being serious, sir? You attacked someone else's logic, calling it "completely retarded" - when in fact it's you who is using the logically fallacy.

You are using the bible to prove the existence of God, who supposedly created the bible. You quote scriptures of the bible and call that logic? I can just as easily say the universe always existed, so it doesn't need to be created, as easily as you can say that about god. The problem with your argument is that it complicates the issue, and offers no solution to the original problem before it complicated it in the first place.

Anirak

There's one thing here no one has spoken of. Time.

I'm too tired at the moment to explain this, but I'll do my best. Time is an illusion to us humans in this world, (I'm not religious) So if time is an illusion to us, then God has always existed, but God in itself is existence, therefore existence has always existed. What God means by creation however is it may be when he started making humans (and aliens alike possibly) see time as a line of events, instead of all at once going on infinite.

There's so much in this universe that goes far beyond anyone's understanding on this world, this is even pointless to talk about considering that. (No I'm not talking about God's understanding, I'm saying science in general, sceince hasn't even scratched the surface of what were going to learn in the future. Shit we just barely started learning about what atoms are starting in the 1800's, and we still don't completely know what they are....*Talking about the internals*)

It's like a 12 year old trying to explain how he know's everything. I'm not just talking about athiesm, but religion too, except religion is leaning towards the right answer-since it's atleast acknowledging there are things we may not know about.

Time is an illusion to us humans in this world
Sorry, you can't just declare that time is an illusion without backing that statement up and then basing a bunch of other conclusions on it. Time is NOT an illusion of the human mind. Time is a measurable characteristic of the universe.


So if time is an illusion to us, then God has always existed
So if time is an illusion to us, then The Flying Spaghetti Monster has always existed.

but God in itself is existence
So you're defining God as 'existence'? Alrighty.

therefore existence has always existed.
Nothing you have written has proven that there was no beginning to time.

except religion is leaning towards the right answer-since it's atleast acknowledging there are things we may not know about.
This may be the most idiotic statement yet, so I'll jump right over your other nonsense and get right to this:

Are you fucking high? Do you actually believe that the scientific world has come to the conclusion that we know everything?

It is science that works to finding answers. Religions are static and stick to the same old fundamental dogmas and don't work towards exploring anything other than what ancient texts claim are true.

Sorry, you can't just declare that time is an illusion without backing that statement up and then basing a bunch of other conclusions on it. Time is NOT an illusion of the human mind. Time is a measurable characteristic of the universe.



So if time is an illusion to us, then The Flying Spaghetti Monster has always existed.


So you're defining God as 'existence'? Alrighty.


Nothing you have written has proven that there was no beginning to time.


This may be the most idiotic statement yet, so I'll jump right over your other nonsense and get right to this:

Are you fucking high? Do you actually believe that the scientific world has come to the conclusion that we know everything?

It is science that works to finding answers. Religions are static and stick to the same old fundamental dogmas and don't work towards exploring anything other than what ancient texts claim are true.

You're an idiot.

http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-time.htm
http://www.idiocentrism.com/time3.htm

You can know God exists because his creations are everywhere and the book he wrote (the bible) has been correct with all of it's predictions so far

I'm using this as my weekly dumbass quote next week :p.

Your an idiot.
That's "you're" an idiot. :rolleyes:

I don't see what in those links is supposed to prove that time doesn't exist. But then again, it's not my job to provide your evidence for you.

The mystery of time is an illusion. Certainly time exists. Some physicists claim that the flow of time from past to future is an illusion, but that's not quite the same thing. That is to say, we understand time just as well, and in the same ways, as we understand space. If time seems mysterious (or rather, more mysterious than space), that's just an illusion, since mathematically, physicists treat time and space in the same manner. Physicists, however, do not claim that time does not exist, which is I presume what you were claiming when calling time an illusion. Calling time itself an illusion, suggests that time does not exist. If you were claiming something else, I'd like to know what it was that could back up your claims that "So if time is an illusion to us, then God has always existed".

There was only one thing you wanted to rebut me on, eh? Maybe I was able to convince you that your statement "except religion is leaning towards the right answer-since it's atleast acknowledging there are things we may not know about." is an absolute retarded criticism of science. But I doubt you're bright enough to get it.

I'm using this as my weekly dumbass quote next week :p.

I'm almost certain he was trolling, judging by the way that he almost seems to insult himself on purpose. As for that dumbass post...

Your an idiot.

This one will do.

Anirak

That's "you're" an idiot. :rolleyes:

I don't see what in those links is supposed to prove that time doesn't exist. But then again, it's not my job to provide your evidence for you.

The mystery of time is an illusion. Certainly time exists. Some physicists claim that the flow of time from past to future is an illusion, but that's not quite the same thing. That is to say, we understand time just as well, and in the same ways, as we understand space. If time seems mysterious (or rather, more mysterious than space), that's just an illusion, since mathematically, physicists treat time and space in the same manner. Physicists, however, do not claim that time does not exist, which is I presume what you were claiming when calling time an illusion. Calling time itself an illusion, suggests that time does not exist. If you were claiming something else, I'd like to know what it was that could back up your claims that "So if time is an illusion to us, then God has always existed".

There was only one thing you wanted to rebut me on, eh? Maybe I was able to convince you that your statement "except religion is leaning towards the right answer-since it's atleast acknowledging there are things we may not know about." is an absolute retarded criticism of science. But I doubt you're bright enough to get it.

I'm pointing out how useless this debate is because neither of us know the truth.

and this isn't a spelling bee or made for grammical perfection-this is totse dumbfuck.

What isn't an illusion of the mind?

I'm pointing out how useless this debate is because neither of us know the truth.
No, you were trying to point out that physicists claim that time itself is an illusion... and you failed.

Debating is not useless because as you say, neither of us knows the truth. If you actually believed that debating is useless, you wouldn't have bothered debating at all. Funny how posters will declare debating is useless only after being shown that their arguments are bullshit and they can't answer questions calling them out.


and this isn't a spelling bee or made for grammical perfection-this is totse dumbfuck.
Grammical perfection? Yeah, I'm the dumb fuck. If you don't see the irony of writing "your an idiot" and writing "grammical perfection" right before calling someone a 'dumbfuck', there's not much hope for you.

P.S. Why did you bother editing your post and changing 'your' to 'you're'?

So naive but you tried your best in making religion a foe.

I guess ill give a +1 for that.

An interesting thought just occured to me. I imagine that when people think of Atheism and Religion, they can't really see how they could go together.

According to most religions, the central god-figure is what caused everything to come into existence. Now, if "God" caused everything to exist, then he obviously couldn't have existed. Now, if we define existence as anything which has to obey certain physical laws, then wouldn't it stand to reason that something non-existent doesn't have to obey these laws?

So there you go. We now have a deity who is able to create a rock so large he isn't able to lift it, then go ahead and lift it, simply by virtue of his non-existence! Not to mention we also have a universe which doesn't have to worry about proving how an existing "God" could be.

Congratulations, you've come to understand a common teaching in religions: God is everything AND nothing.

On the argument of time's existence:

Does an inch exist? Or is it an illusory tool used to describe a particular amount of linear space?

Does a second exist? Or is it an illusory tool used to describe a specific number of movements?

Time is a measurement of changes in the dimensions of x, y, and z. It is not, in itself, a real dimension, but an artificial dimension: each point along the dimension t is nothing more than another snapshot of the 3 real dimensions. Look at the very definition of a second - it's a measure of oscillations in 3-dimensional space. Time is a tool used to simplify the explanations of motion.

Take this as an analog for time and xyz.

Jim has an imaginary friend named Pocochino. Since he was born, Jim eats 3 corndogs - one on Saturday, one on Wednesday, and one right before Friday gives to the next Saturday. When he does this, I call it a Fartwat. I can even use a graph and map these Fartwats as a dimension, being as they have a direct and objective relation to a real dimension by ratio (Just as time has a direct and objective relationship to the 3 real dimensions by ratio: 1 second is some millions of oscillations of an atom in the dimensions of xyz.) Because of this correlation, we can now use Fartwats to measure anything else that has a direct and objective relation to Jim's eating of corndogs. For example, if Jim, without exception, consumes 3 corndogs during 7 rotations of the Earth, we can now use Fartwats to measure a week. This furthers the Fartwats utility, but has still made it no more real than Jim's imaginary friend Pocochino.

Now, really, there's the consumption of 3 corndogs...but I've created a measuring tool. At 3.33 Fartwats, there still exists no Fartwats in any real sense other than an artificial measurement of Jim's corndog fetish. Now, we can, in thought, go back to 1 Fartwat...but that is nothing but a mental image of Jim having eaten three corndogs...we can't really go back because the system of Fartwat is a mental system, not a real system. We can't travel forward in Fartwats either, because it violates its own definition of being a specific number of actions. Without the real aspect of Jim eating corndogs, Fartwats do not exist. It is imaginary, however useful and convenient it may be in solving issues regarding the edibility of corndogs.

Hope someone got a chuckle out of that. I had fun typing it.

On the argument of time's existence:

Does an inch exist? Or is it an illusory tool used to describe a particular amount of linear space?

Does a second exist? Or is it an illusory tool used to describe a specific number of movements?

Time is a measurement of changes in the dimensions of x, y, and z. It is not, in itself, a real dimension, but an artificial dimension: each point along the dimension t is nothing more than another snapshot of the 3 real dimensions. Look at the very definition of a second - it's a measure of oscillations in 3-dimensional space. Time is a tool used to simplify the explanations of motion.

Take this as an analog for time and xyz.

Jim has an imaginary friend named Pocochino. Since he was born, Jim eats 3 corndogs - one on Saturday, one on Wednesday, and one right before Friday gives to the next Saturday. When he does this, I call it a Fartwat. I can even use a graph and map these Fartwats as a dimension, being as they have a direct and objective relation to a real dimension by ratio (Just as time has a direct and objective relationship to the 3 real dimensions by ratio: 1 second is some millions of oscillations of an atom in the dimensions of xyz.) Because of this correlation, we can now use Fartwats to measure anything else that has a direct and objective relation to Jim's eating of corndogs. For example, if Jim, without exception, consumes 3 corndogs during 7 rotations of the Earth, we can now use Fartwats to measure a week. This furthers the Fartwats utility, but has still made it no more real than Jim's imaginary friend Pocochino.

Now, really, there's the consumption of 3 corndogs...but I've created a measuring tool. At 3.33 Fartwats, there still exists no Fartwats in any real sense other than an artificial measurement of Jim's corndog fetish. Now, we can, in thought, go back to 1 Fartwat...but that is nothing but a mental image of Jim having eaten three corndogs...we can't really go back because the system of Fartwat is a mental system, not a real system. We can't travel forward in Fartwats either, because it violates its own definition of being a specific number of actions. Without the real aspect of Jim eating corndogs, Fartwats do not exist. It is imaginary, however useful and convenient it may be in solving issues regarding the edibility of corndogs.

Hope someone got a chuckle out of that. I had fun typing it.

LOL! A slightly confusing way to explain it, but good job.

On the argument of time's existence:

Does an inch exist? Or is it an illusory tool used to describe a particular amount of linear space?

Does a second exist? Or is it an illusory tool used to describe a specific number of movements?

Time is a measurement of changes in the dimensions of x, y, and z. It is not, in itself, a real dimension, but an artificial dimension: each point along the dimension t is nothing more than another snapshot of the 3 real dimensions. Look at the very definition of a second - it's a measure of oscillations in 3-dimensional space. Time is a tool used to simplify the explanations of motion.

Take this as an analog for time and xyz.

Jim has an imaginary friend named Pocochino. Since he was born, Jim eats 3 corndogs - one on Saturday, one on Wednesday, and one right before Friday gives to the next Saturday. When he does this, I call it a Fartwat. I can even use a graph and map these Fartwats as a dimension, being as they have a direct and objective relation to a real dimension by ratio (Just as time has a direct and objective relationship to the 3 real dimensions by ratio: 1 second is some millions of oscillations of an atom in the dimensions of xyz.) Because of this correlation, we can now use Fartwats to measure anything else that has a direct and objective relation to Jim's eating of corndogs. For example, if Jim, without exception, consumes 3 corndogs during 7 rotations of the Earth, we can now use Fartwats to measure a week. This furthers the Fartwats utility, but has still made it no more real than Jim's imaginary friend Pocochino.

Now, really, there's the consumption of 3 corndogs...but I've created a measuring tool. At 3.33 Fartwats, there still exists no Fartwats in any real sense other than an artificial measurement of Jim's corndog fetish. Now, we can, in thought, go back to 1 Fartwat...but that is nothing but a mental image of Jim having eaten three corndogs...we can't really go back because the system of Fartwat is a mental system, not a real system. We can't travel forward in Fartwats either, because it violates its own definition of being a specific number of actions. Without the real aspect of Jim eating corndogs, Fartwats do not exist. It is imaginary, however useful and convenient it may be in solving issues regarding the edibility of corndogs.

Hope someone got a chuckle out of that. I had fun typing it.

Lol we've got to measure the fartwats! This is deff a good way to explain it. No Matter if your looking at science or religion, its all man made and all has the same human flaws.

It's like a 12 year old trying to explain how he know's everything. I'm not just talking about athiesm, but religion too, except religion is leaning towards the right answer-since it's atleast acknowledging there are things we may not know about.

That would be right, if all the facts relating to your statement were completely different.

Atheists almost unanimously support the scientific method.

The scientific method leaves all gaps, all unknowns, open.

They freely admit that there are a huge amount of things that we don't know, and we speculate about. They never, ever, ever claim to know everything.

Religion does the opposite. They say they know who created the universe, and that's that. They will say that God himself is a mystery, sure, but they fill the gap with God.


Science leaves the things we don't know as unknown.

Religion fills them with erroneous conclusions and refuses to compromise, to the point of extremism (eg the ridiculous beliefs in creationism).

Science always acknowledges the never ending search for knowledge, and corrects itself whenever there is new information. Furthermore, until there is sufficient evidence, it never pretends to know the answer. If we don't know, we don't know, and science does not pretend otherwise.

That statement was the most nonsensical I have heard in a long time, even more so then the gibberish of the beginning of the post.

Christ, base your statements on reality.

That would be right, if all the facts relating to your statement were completely different.

Atheists almost unanimously support the scientific method.

The scientific method leaves all gaps, all unknowns, open.

They freely admit that there are a huge amount of things that we don't know, and we speculate about. They never, ever, ever claim to know everything.

Religion does the opposite. They say they know who created the universe, and that's that. They will say that God himself is a mystery, sure, but they fill the gap with God.


Science leaves the things we don't know as unknown.

Religion fills them with erroneous conclusions and refuses to compromise, to the point of extremism (eg the ridiculous beliefs in creationism).

Science always acknowledges the never ending search for knowledge, and corrects itself whenever there is new information. Furthermore, until there is sufficient evidence, it never pretends to know the answer. If we don't know, we don't know, and science does not pretend otherwise.

That statement was the most nonsensical I have heard in a long time, even more so then the gibberish of the beginning of the post.

Christ, base your statements on reality.

Thank you. That was extremely well put.

That would be right, if all the facts relating to your statement were completely different.

Atheists almost unanimously support the scientific method.

The scientific method leaves all gaps, all unknowns, open.

They freely admit that there are a huge amount of things that we don't know, and we speculate about. They never, ever, ever claim to know everything.

Religion does the opposite. They say they know who created the universe, and that's that. They will say that God himself is a mystery, sure, but they fill the gap with God.


Science leaves the things we don't know as unknown.

Religion fills them with erroneous conclusions and refuses to compromise, to the point of extremism (eg the ridiculous beliefs in creationism).

Science always acknowledges the never ending search for knowledge, and corrects itself whenever there is new information. Furthermore, until there is sufficient evidence, it never pretends to know the answer. If we don't know, we don't know, and science does not pretend otherwise.

That statement was the most nonsensical I have heard in a long time, even more so then the gibberish of the beginning of the post.

Christ, base your statements on reality.

Only reason I said that religion leans towards the right answer is because of spirituality. Science tends to completely say that it is impossible for spirituality to exist with our current instruments. Regardless of anomolous activities that can't be explained. I'm not saying religion is leaning towards the truth because of God, but because of acknowledging there's something there that we don't know about.

With athiesm, athiests who go by the scientific method, alot of those gaps are left unknown and forgotten. As in they never fill that gap, and then unless there is some incredible breakthrough, that gap begins to become something that if discussed, could ruin a persons reputation towards science.

I'm not supporting religion, and I'm not supporting athiesm, both are incorrect. Sure you can not believe in a God, but when you try and push other people who have different idea's into making them think you know the correct answer, that draws the line saying athiesm isn't necessarly a good thing. Same goes with religion, people push religion as well, which is also wrong.

Instead of being "Athiests" or "religious" why don't people just be scientific, base it off their own knowledge, but at the same time acknowledge they DON"T know the correct answer, because if you try pushing it on other people, saying "There is no God", that is claiming you know the correct answer. People shouldn't say "There is a God" Either. They should instead say "There might be a God", or "God might not exist".

Only reason I said that religion leans towards the right answer is because of spirituality. Science tends to completely say that it is impossible for spirituality to exist with our current instruments. Regardless of anomolous activities that can't be explained. I'm not saying religion is leaning towards the truth because of God, but because of acknowledging there's something there that we don't know about.

With athiesm, athiests who go by the scientific method, alot of those gaps are left unknown and forgotten. As in they never fill that gap, and then unless there is some incredible breakthrough, that gap begins to become something that if discussed, could ruin a persons reputation towards science.

I'm not supporting religion, and I'm not supporting athiesm, both are incorrect. Sure you can not believe in a God, but when you try and push other people who have different idea's into making them think you know the correct answer, that draws the line saying athiesm isn't necessarly a good thing. Same goes with religion, people push religion as well, which is also wrong.

Instead of being "Athiests" or "religious" why don't people just be scientific, base it off their own knowledge, but at the same time acknowledge they DON"T know the correct answer, because if you try pushing it on other people, saying "There is no God", that is claiming you know the correct answer. People shouldn't say "There is a God" Either. They should instead say "There might be a God", or "God might not exist".

Wow you really explained that well. I find that happens a lot, if someone were to say "i believe there is a god" many would automatically think they are sure there is one, that the person couldn't possible believe there might also not be one. I guess the key word there is believe though which i also find is another problem when trying to explain your views, communication, because words can have so many different meanings and can be intrepreted many ways. But i digress. The point is none of is can really know the true "correct" answer so it really is a waste of time to try and push your beliefs and ideas on others, because it is ultimately what they choose to believe anyway. What works for some people, would never make sense to others.