I'm talking about existance. Of course the bible has thousands of contradictions, but atheism has one MAJOR one, that cant be overlooked, and pretty much makes it false. The whole chicken/egg thing about existance. I'm not talking about the universe, but actual existance. The time/space that would have had to existed in the first place for the big bang to happen. Atheist dont believe in god because they say nothing could be here forever. But existance had to always be here forever, either that, or once there was nothing. Nothing also cant exist, not according to science, and no im not talking about black space, I'm talking about NOTHING!!!! The same nothing that just created time and space out of nowhere. According to your own beliefs it cant exist, much less you be able to show that it can exist (just like you ask people to show that god exists).

There is no answer to it. The only thing, is either there is some other dimension, or we're living in a matrix or something. And wether it's an electronic matrix like in the movie or not is debatable, but "reality" isn't really real. If every single bit of life in the universe was destroyed, would we have ever really been here? If there is another dimension we cant physically get to, do they really exist? Another possibility is Einstiens time travel idea, and that time doesn't really exist. The only reality is what happens after we're gone, because eventually there wont be life in this universe. And if there is no other dimension, after we're all gone, who's to say we ever existed? This still isn't proof that I go on, or that I can still think after I am dead. I hope I'll be able to, and be with the people that I love on earth, or just live in my own reality. But if I have lived previous lives, if I cant remember them, are they real? If I live another life after this, and cant remember this one, I might as well be gone all together. I kind of think I will go on to some other reality.

Why cant atheists acknowledge that since their beliefs are based on science, that it's crazy for them to say that something natural is eternal (universe or existance) but something religious people (believe not of this dimension) can be eternal? Or them believing that nothing ever existed. Is the universe like grand theft auto? If I go out far enough does an invisible wall just turn me around? And if that is so, what are we just floating around in? What's outside of our universe, and whats outside of that, and so on? Space obviously, but it has to end, or not, and either contradicts your own laws. So we have to be in a matrix of some kind, and our conciousness somewhere else, right?

I'm talking about existance. Of course the bible has thousands of contradictions, but atheism has one MAJOR one, that cant be overlooked, and pretty much makes it false. The whole chicken/egg thing about existance. I'm not talking about the universe, but actual existance. The time/space that would have had to existed in the first place for the big bang to happen.
If you really want to learn about what cosmologists have to say about the Big Bang and the necessity for God/gods, I'll make some book recommendations. Hint: None of the scientific theories require a creator.


Atheist dont believe in god because they say nothing could be here forever.
I haven't met one atheist yet who doesn't have belief in God/gods for that reason and I doubt you do either. Nice try though.

But existance had to always be here forever, either that, or once there was nothing.
Wrong. Tell me if you want those book recommendations.


Nothing also cant exist, not according to science,
Wrong again. I'd like you to show me what scientific law says that.

and no im not talking about black space, I'm talking about NOTHING!!!!
Where are you getting the idea that a "black space", a complete vacuum devoid of any material, is defined as 'something'? Sorry, that would be NOTHING!!!!

The same nothing that just created time and space out of nowhere. According to your own beliefs it cant exist, much less you be able to show that it can exist (just like you ask people to show that god exists).
Oh, really? Maybe you should check this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw) out.

So we have to be in a matrix of some kind, and our conciousness somewhere else, right?
Wrong. That is not how it has to be.

It's not that complicated, so theres no need for reading a whole book on it. If you believe that NOTHING once was here, no space, no atoms, no anything, then you have to believe the elements necessary for the big bang to happen, just appeared out of nowhere. How is that different from christians believing a ghost pulled the universe out of his hat?

I am about to start reading books on quantum physics. Just because it seems like a way or atleast a reason for things being the way they are. The big bang only explains how the universe came about. If the universe is expanding, space has to be beyond the universe, so does it go on forever? And again, if it doesnt, that means NOTHING exists outside of it. It's just insane anyway you think of it. Thats why I am starting to believe it's not real anyway. Im going to buy some books on the multiple world/ multiple mind theories. Again, not necessarily the truth, but it will atleast attempt to explain things that are un-explainable so far, and offer up theories. Who's to say you aren't your own god? Who's to tell you that I really exist or vice versa? The truth is alot deeper than science no matter what. Wether you were created by a thinking being, or you are actually some type of god yourself, and when you die, you will control whatever reality you want with your own mind. I dont follow religion, because if there is a god, it's equally insane for us to even believe the true religion has been found, and if it has, if it was that important for us to follow, god would have given us all some kind of proof. Much like I see this contradiction as a proof that something exists, or nothing exists, and if this is all fake. This is alot of what I think about, it gets to the point of bothering me. I've heard of people commiting suicide thinking about it. But I will buy some books on quantum mechanics.

EDIT: I appreciate your concern, but I've never been really interested in the big bang. I know for the most part how it happened, but it still doesn't answer my question. Obviously the universe was created by something, and the big bang is just as probable as anything else, but that doesn't get me anywhere. It's hard for me to believe that any concious being has always been here, but it's equally, in fact more so hard to believe that there is no place that we cant get to physically (or many places) from this dimension. Just like if that exists, if they cant get to us, we really dont exist to them, because it's not an actual place, not to us anyway.

Sweet Jesus. So... much... ignorance.

I'm talking about existance. Of course the bible has thousands of contradictions, but atheism has one MAJOR one, that cant be overlooked,

Very true, this is why I say I put "faith" in atheism.

and pretty much makes it false.

Oh really? That was a rather simple approach to this MAJOR one contradiction.

The whole chicken/egg thing about existance. I'm not talking about the universe, but actual existance. The time/space that would have had to existed in the first place for the big bang to happen.

Right, the chicken and the egg analogy. Of course what your not catching... is that God or not, there is the very same problem. One can say that it's impossible for existence to pop out of nowhere, or be here forever... and our minds make that easy to say. But can this not be directly applied to some god as well? That it's impossible for him to pop out of nowhere, or be here forever?


Atheist dont believe in god because they say nothing could be here forever.

You know some pretty retarded atheists then. Some very contradicting atheists, who don't seem to think a whole lot about their atheism at all. That, or you don't know any atheists, and you're merely making this horrible, horrible assumption.


But existance had to always be here forever, either that, or once there was nothing. Nothing also cant exist, not according to science, and no im not talking about black space, I'm talking about NOTHING!!!! The same nothing that just created time and space out of nowhere. According to your own beliefs it cant exist, much less you be able to show that it can exist (just like you ask people to show that god exists).

We cannot humanly comprehend nothing. But that is not to say that it cannot exist. Same goes for something always existing... we have enough of a hard time trying to put a finger on "infinite"... that none of us can really comprehend infinite backwards. I believe this has to do with not being able to to comprehend true negatives... for example... don't think of a pink elephant. Guess what you just did?


There is no answer to it.


Jesus. Another big jump for you big guy. I'm glad that other humans over the last two thousand years have not been so easy to give up and kill hope so fast.


The only thing, is either there is some other dimension, or we're living in a matrix or something. And wether it's an electronic matrix like in the movie or not is debatable, but "reality" isn't really real. If every single bit of life in the universe was destroyed, would we have ever really been here? If there is another dimension we cant physically get to, do they really exist?

o_O

You're an idiot.


Another possibility is Einstiens time travel idea, and that time doesn't really exist. The only reality is what happens after we're gone, because eventually there wont be life in this universe. And if there is no other dimension, after we're all gone, who's to say we ever existed?

You shifted from the universe existing, to life existing. Big jump. Although you never really made a point anyways... so I guess it's pretty neutral.


This still isn't proof that I go on, or that I can still think after I am dead. I hope I'll be able to, and be with the people that I love on earth, or just live in my own reality.

Yeah... that sounds really really nice. But that doesn't make it any more true.



But if I have lived previous lives, if I cant remember them, are they real? If I live another life after this, and cant remember this one, I might as well be gone all together. I kind of think I will go on to some other reality.

Whose to say you lived previous lives? Where the fuck is this notion of a soul coming from, that passes from life to life? Or from life, to some other reality? What the hell is this other reality? A heaven? Where the hell did that come from? Somehow you've come to a loss at explaining existence, and then jumped to a completely dumbfounded set of ideas and events that hold no truth in this universe or reality.


Why cant atheists acknowledge that since their beliefs are based on science,

My beliefs are not based on science. Or at least, my lack of a god isn't. I'm not waving the holy "atheist flag".... I simply cannot believe in a god because it's just as likely that the floating tea pot, the pink unicorn, and the flying spaghetti monster all exist. If you try to develop an unbiased world view... a 'point of view'-less point of view... then you see there is absolutely no reason to believe in a God at all. This is why I lack belief in a god.

that it's crazy for them to say that something natural is eternal (universe or existance) but something religious people (believe not of this dimension) can be eternal?

The universe IS eternal. We are just, at this point, unable to comprehend that. The same flaw comes when saying God is eternal... even if he is part of "another dimension", the phenomena as Kant would put it, you still reach the problem "well who made God". It's inescapable, even with religion. Going back to your completely silly matrix possibility... who made the machines?



Or them believing that nothing ever existed. Is the universe like grand theft auto? If I go out far enough does an invisible wall just turn me around? And if that is so, what are we just floating around in? What's outside of our universe, and whats outside of that, and so on? Space obviously, but it has to end, or not, and either contradicts your own laws. So we have to be in a matrix of some kind, and our conciousness somewhere else, right?

Nobody knows the answers to those questions. But to jump that because of our ignorance, we are in some matrix is quite frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

It's not that complicated, so theres no need for reading a whole book on it.
Yeah, those books about the Big Bang and how it all started are for dummies. You know it all already.

You've already shown that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to cosmology.


If you believe that NOTHING once was here, no space, no atoms, no anything, then you have to believe the elements necessary for the big bang to happen, just appeared out of nowhere. How is that different from christians believing a ghost pulled the universe out of his hat?
Did you read from the link I provided? It's different because the evidence for the Big Bang can literally fill libraries.

If the universe is expanding, space has to be beyond the universe, so does it go on forever?
I thought you said it wasn't that complicated? Again, I can recommend books if you're interested. Or you can start by looking at this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#theory) for an answer to your question.


And again, if it doesnt, that means NOTHING exists outside of it. It's just insane anyway you think of it.
Yes, it is. Just because something is very difficult to understand doesn't mean it's not happening that way or gods are in control.


Thats why I am starting to believe it's not real anyway. Im going to buy some books on the multiple world/ multiple mind theories.
Yeah, that seems a saner way to go.


Again, not necessarily the truth, but it will atleast attempt to explain things that are un-explainable so far, and offer up theories.
No different than people making up gods. It's the lazy way out. One can't understand how the universe began so simply believing in a god who claims it's beyong human understanding and He creates by willing things in to existence is ananswer, so they stick with it. It makes some people happier to have an answer, but to each his own.

I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things; by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose — which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me.

Richard Feynman


Obviously the universe was created by something, and the big bang is just as probable as anything else
No, it's not as probable as anything else. It's much more probable as there are tons of evidence for it.


but that doesn't get me anywhere. It's hard for me to believe that any concious being has always been here, but it's equally, in fact more so hard to believe that there is no place that we cant get to physically (or many places) from this dimension. Just like if that exists, if they cant get to us, we really dont exist to them, because it's not an actual place, not to us anyway.
WoW! Alrighty then.

psssssst...

just so all of you know

the big bang is not a beginning of time theory, it is merely a model used to explain the current arrangement of planets/solar systems/galaxies. And dont try to tell me I'm wrong, I know what I'm talking about on this one.

Hells yeah, ripping apart the ignorant is fun y'all!

psssssst...

just so all of you know

the big bang is not a beginning of time theory, it is merely a model used to explain the current arrangement of planets/solar systems/galaxies. And dont try to tell me I'm wrong, I know what I'm talking about on this one.

Very true. For the big bang to occur, time/existence/even matter had to previously exist.

Do you know a lot about this subject?

If so, please do share more. I would like to hear your thoughts.

I don't really have the time to write too much on the subject, but if you're interested in it I know of two VERY good books about cosmology. The Big Bang by Simon Singh is a very good book which covers the history of the big bang theory very well. The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene is a great book about modern cosmological theories as well. Neither of them take much previous knowledge of the subject to understand fully, as they are both written for the general public.

Other books of interest:
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
The Universe and Multiple Reality by M.R. Frank

Thanks. Thats what Im trying to say. The big bang doesn't explain existance, or time. Thanks for the suggestions. Something interesting, I was reading this book, and found this quote that had nothing that I could see to do with the subject of the book, and it applied to this, and it is basically what I was trying to say.

"For if only a single substance exists, then either I must be this substance, and consequently I am God (but this contradicts my dependency) or else I am an accident." -Immanuel Kant.

I looked him up, and he was into metaphysics a long time ago. Something else, that is funny to think about, is that once we are all dead, and wether we are concious or not, if we aren't in this dimension, did this dimension ever exist? It's like a tree falling in the woods with nobody around to hear it.

So basically, something exists beyond our "reality" right? It seems that it has to, to me atleast. If it didn't, and there wern't a different dimension in wich our laws didn't apply, then nothing makes sense. Time just cant really exist. And again, it wouldn't prove that I have a soul, but then the question comes, that if I dont have a soul, then why? I want to live on, but I geuss if I dont, it will be the same as before I was born, and that isn't depressing. But I still want to be with people I love for eternity.

There is a book I'm going to order about the brain, and electric waves or something, and how your "mind" is immortal, and is sub-atomic like radio waves.

i stopped reading because here's the deal: nothing matters. even if you're right. because i could put a bullet in your head before you get a chance to tell anyone. and even if you did get a chance to tell anyone; what would it matter? would they care, and would the world even be able to handle the truth??

get your priorities in order son... worry about the things that actually matter :D

I'm talking about existance. Of course the bible has thousands of contradictions, but atheism has one MAJOR one, that cant be overlooked, and pretty much makes it false. The whole chicken/egg thing about existance. I'm not talking about the universe, but actual existance. The time/space that would have had to existed in the first place for the big bang to happen. Atheist dont believe in god because they say nothing could be here forever. But existance had to always be here forever, either that, or once there was nothing. Nothing also cant exist, not according to science, and no im not talking about black space, I'm talking about NOTHING!!!! The same nothing that just created time and space out of nowhere. According to your own beliefs it cant exist, much less you be able to show that it can exist (just like you ask people to show that god exists).

There is no answer to it. The only thing, is either there is some other dimension, or we're living in a matrix or something. And wether it's an electronic matrix like in the movie or not is debatable, but "reality" isn't really real. If every single bit of life in the universe was destroyed, would we have ever really been here? If there is another dimension we cant physically get to, do they really exist? Another possibility is Einstiens time travel idea, and that time doesn't really exist. The only reality is what happens after we're gone, because eventually there wont be life in this universe. And if there is no other dimension, after we're all gone, who's to say we ever existed? This still isn't proof that I go on, or that I can still think after I am dead. I hope I'll be able to, and be with the people that I love on earth, or just live in my own reality. But if I have lived previous lives, if I cant remember them, are they real? If I live another life after this, and cant remember this one, I might as well be gone all together. I kind of think I will go on to some other reality.

Why cant atheists acknowledge that since their beliefs are based on science, that it's crazy for them to say that something natural is eternal (universe or existance) but something religious people (believe not of this dimension) can be eternal? Or them believing that nothing ever existed. Is the universe like grand theft auto? If I go out far enough does an invisible wall just turn me around? And if that is so, what are we just floating around in? What's outside of our universe, and whats outside of that, and so on? Space obviously, but it has to end, or not, and either contradicts your own laws. So we have to be in a matrix of some kind, and our conciousness somewhere else, right?

First of all you CANNOT catagorize athiests together except to say they are without thiestic beliefs. We are not sheep. We are individuals.

Secondly, science is a tool for the truth. science leaves room for any possiblitly but before it is accepted and known to be true you must aquire evidence and prove your case. In that spirit science tredges on looking for the truth, looking for what can be known (not speculated) by us at this period in time.

What you are presenting with your invisible wall and the natural cannot be eternal arguments ARE in fact at the limits of present science. Science cannot test these things and cannot know the truth at this time. This leaves a gap in scientific knowledge that is filled with opinion, speculation and religion.

This means that, much like the belief held by the church that the Earth is the center is of the universe, until science finds the truth we are left with supernatural beliefs and other fiction. It is not the truth unless you can prove it. That is all science is. A truth machine.

Your opinions and speculation on the matter of the origin of the universe and how big it really is are about as concrete as my idea of saying you are all part of my waking dream and I am God. We both have an EQUAL amount of proof. This is why science is needed. To see through BOTH of our bullshit stories and find out which is true.

In the spirit of the thread however I would say that no matter what you believe you WILL have to believe in the eternal. Whether it is an eternal creator or an eternal dimensional structure. The belief in something being here forever is not only hard to imagine but will be neccessary in any argument invlolving origin.

That being said the truth is the universe is here. We are in it. There was a big bang and there will be soem type of end to matter, whether it is a big crunch or expansion apart. Those are the accepted knowns right now.

Since this is all we know and something has to be eternal in the origin argument let us assume that the universe and matter are eternal. Big bang, big crunch never ending cycle.

This all exists right? You're not going to argue that.
Now let's assume that other animals on the planet have lesser minds, capable of understanding less.
Now let's assume because of that; that our minds are animal too (not an ultimate mind) and so are incapable of understanding certain concepts.
The chicken/egg nature of creation is one of these.
Your mind is not good enough to understand spontaneous existence or infinity motherfucker, nobody's is.
And it's human arrogance to assume that the creation of the universe is something we can possibly understand (god), rather than a natural phenomenon in line with the laws of science.

Wow, I'm not sure if I should argue with someone of your intelligence, but I'll try to clear some stuff up on the theory you're trying to argue against. Just so you know what it actually stands for.

Space, and matter, has always been here, and will always be here. The universe is the matter, not the space. Space goes on forever, the universe is how far into space matter goes. The big bang (oscilisating theory) states that all matter was collected in the center of the universe, and explodes, sending matter flying to every corner of the universe. However, the law of gravity states that matter attracts matter. So a few million billion gazillion years after the big bang, gravity pulls everything back together, to the center of the universe. This pull is so strong that it compresses all matter that exists into a small sphere (small for the universe), and then the big bang happens over again. Keep in mind matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Thus, the big bang has happened infinite times before and will happen infinite times again.

CarharticWeek is right, our minds are not capable of understanding certain concepts, specifically infinite, because our minds were created, and will, one day, be destroyed.

The cosmological constant is defined to such an extent (somewhere around 10^-128 ) that any sort of variation above that would render the universe as unfit for any sort of life at all. That constant is the diety of the atheist. To think that multiverses cycled around until ours had just the right set of constants for life to evolve.

But then nonscience enters when you must prove this multiverse: it cannot be done. You atheists really are up the creek as far as deists are on ultimate origin. Perhaps the multiverse does not exist? The cosmological constant defined so well will not sit well with anyone to be professing atheism, and any sort of generalizations to explain how it may be irrelevant are unscientific at all as they cannot be proven within any sane stretch of time.

We are not so different, you and I.

The cosmological constant is defined to such an extent (somewhere around 10^-128 ) that any sort of variation above that would render the universe as unfit for any sort of life at all. That constant is the diety of the atheist. To think that multiverses cycled around until ours had just the right set of constants for life to evolve.

But then nonscience enters when you must prove this multiverse: it cannot be done. You atheists really are up the creek as far as deists are on ultimate origin. Perhaps the multiverse does not exist? The cosmological constant defined so well will not sit well with anyone to be professing atheism, and any sort of generalizations to explain how it may be irrelevant are unscientific at all as they cannot be proven within any sane stretch of time.

We are not so different, you and I.

You wouldn't be asking that question unless everything lined up for us to evolve this way.

I'd like to point something out. Nothing can be proven. So why does it even matter what we can prove and what we can't prove? Well in the end it doesn't matter. What matters is what works. For some people, religion works, for others atheism works. It all depends on your goal in life. If you want to live the "ignorance is bliss" lifestyle, religion FTW!

people just cant fathom that something can just "exist"
/thread

The very term "supernatural" is a misleading misnomer. Whatever happens is natural--a part of nature.

Folks usually term "supernatural" things that they neither accept nor understand.

We are not so different, you and I.

Faith in some unseen creator that orders his playthings around is a bit more farfetched than our universe simply being one of many and the "miraculous" life sustaining constant not being so unlikely overall. Sure they can't conclusively prove it either but their "religion" isn't trying to push anti-abortion laws and whatnot. Not much of a faith if they wouldn't place weight on it nor let it really affect them

It's hard for me to believe that any concious being has always been here, but it's equally, in fact more so hard to believe that there is no place that we cant get to physically (or many places) from this dimension. Just like if that exists, if they cant get to us, we really dont exist to them, because it's not an actual place, not to us anyway.

You might find the "many worlds" theory of David Lewis interesting, because you (probably unknowingly) echo his words. "On the Plurality of Worlds" deals with something like this, though he claims other worlds would be an "actual" place much like a past time is an actual time.

Faith in some unseen creator that orders his playthings around is a bit more farfetched than our universe simply being one of many and the "miraculous" life sustaining constant not being so unlikely overall. Sure they can't conclusively prove it either but their "religion" isn't trying to push anti-abortion laws and whatnot. Not much of a faith if they wouldn't place weight on it nor let it really affect them

To believe in a god takes the same leap of faith to believe in multiple universes. To believe is one thing, and then to assume all other things must fall into place is quite another. Assumptions are hardly scientific, but assume is all we can do.

What religions teach is immaterial to this discussion. I could take the converse and say "at least religious types dont push abortion laws and whatnot" and it would carry the same gravity as your statement as seen by the opposing viewpoint.

To believe in a god takes the same leap of faith to believe in multiple universes. To believe is one thing, and then to assume all other things must fall into place is quite another. Assumptions are hardly scientific, but assume is all we can do.

What religions teach is immaterial to this discussion. I could take the converse and say "at least religious types dont push abortion laws and whatnot" and it would carry the same gravity as your statement as seen by the opposing viewpoint.

wrong

perfect example of an association fallacy

Well, what doesn't require the alleged "faith" these days? I've never been to Iraq or Africa, those places might not even exist. I've never seen germs but I have faith in biologists

And "hey, this could explain things" is hardly faith comparable with yours. I doubt you'd ever revise your God views simply because someone came up with something that sounds better

Well, what doesn't require the alleged "faith" these days? I've never been to Iraq or Africa, those places might not even exist. I've never seen germs but I have faith in biologists

And "hey, this could explain things" is hardly faith comparable with yours. I doubt you'd ever revise your God views simply because someone came up with something that sounds better

That is quite different from what I am discussing. True you need some sort of faith in it, but, assuming it to be true, at least one person has witnessed to the effect.

Regardless, it is comparable because atheists have not and cannot answer the question. I dont think you quite understand the gravity of what I'm saying. I am saying that if you go back in time all the way to the beginning of the universe, you have a set of constants that defines how every single force will work from that point in time to the ending.

What happens if those constants are off, to the tune of 10^-128'th off? Life does not exist and you have a dead universe.

Or, you can make the monumental leap of faith and assume that, since we ARE here, that the universe cycles, that there are an infinite number of them and we just so happen to be in one that supports life, or of course we are the result of a simulation risiding in the RAM of some fat slob in his parents basement..

Either way, you or anyone else cannot prove any of those statements to be true. Do you know what this assumption would be called?; "unscientific".

Not even Laplace's demon will be able to tell you with any sort of certainty that a multiverse exists, how the universe began, how it will end, what is beyond it, what factors determine the universal constants, etc.

So, no, you are indeed in the same boat as the religious types. I say God created it. You say it somehow happened. Neither of us can definitively prove either case at the most fundamental level.

So, no, you are indeed in the same boat as the religious types. I say God created it. You say it somehow happened. Neither of us can definitively prove either case at the most fundamental level.

You can't prove it, no, but you can't disprove any of the scientific theories (atleast not many of them), while you can disprove well over half the bible. Thus, it is far more likely that our science is right.

However, I believe that everything we got is wrong. That there are nearly infinite diffrent models, and our science has just discovered one that explains most things. Everything could be rewritten into another theory and still be put through scientific experiments. Your God can simply be proven wrong though, atleast most of it.

Yes the big bang in science has the eternal problem. I mean if there is a bang then we need a banger right? That is a very simple answer to a complex question.

There are theories that speculate the universe is eternal and goes through cycles of big bangs and big crunches or that white holes spit matter sucked in black holes out into a parrallel universe. There are plenty of scientific theories that are valid and floating around out there about an eternal universe without a creator.

These theories lack real evidence though. Which should not be a problem for the faithful b/c they already believe in something that has ZERO evidence.

Fact is if you believe in an eternal god without any evidence why not believe in an eternal universe that has SOME evidence?

T
You atheists really are up the creek as far as deists are on ultimate origin.
...

We are not so different, you and I.

If by "atheists" you mean "the ridiculous generalization of a group of people I've made", then I agree.

I'm an atheist, and I don't fit your inane description. I don't have to explain anything about the "ultimate origins" because I make no claims about the ultimate origin. I simply do not know, which is far more honest than anything you've proposed.

Our universe evolved.

We evolved.

The cosmic constant is the speed at which everything evovled around. Differnet speed and I believe you would see a different universe with different life.

The eternity problem is this. Something needs to be eternal...whether it is a god...or the universe itself.

Fact is there is more evidence for scientific explanations in and about the universe than there are for God. You believe in God b/c your society, community, probably parents told you too. Told you if you did not then the worst thing on this Earth (Death) would pale in comparision to the punishment you would recieve. PERIOD.

Science has beaten religion back time and time again. God has shrunk in the face and might of science. He will continue to do so. The only arguments a religious person has are the ever shrinking gaps in scientific knowledge. Science dictates what you believe no matter how holy you are. For example look at intelligent design.

Creationism lacks any real evidence what so ever. Creationism WILL BE replaced by intelligent design over the next century. Intelligent Design is this: Science taking a long time making a huge ice cream sunday (figuring out evolution) and religion coming and putting the cherry on top (God did it).

Christians are realizing for the fist time that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. Science told you that NOT GOD. The Sun is at the center of our solar system. Science told you that NOT GOD. Were it not for science we would all be still worshipping a modified pagan/egyptian deitific representation of the Sun.

Athiest who believe in science are far from up a creek when it comes to thing like the cosmic constant. Those who understand science know that without proof you have nothing. I make no claim that god did not create the universe or that he did. I cannot prove gods existence. Does not mean he does or does not just means there is nothing in the whole universe we have seen so far that indicates a creator exists or that he does not.

What we have seen is the written word of god and supposed events in the bible proven false. This tells me that the god the christians worship, the god of the bible, is a fairy tale. They dont have it right.

(christians applies equally to judaism, and islam they all come from the old testement)

If by "atheists" you mean "the ridiculous generalization of a group of people I've made", then I agree.

I'm an atheist, and I don't fit your inane description. I don't have to explain anything about the "ultimate origins" because I make no claims about the ultimate origin. I simply do not know, which is far more honest than anything you've proposed.

Then that makes you an intellectually lazy fucker. You have truth enough in ignorance, just the same as a religious type?

Then that makes you an intellectually lazy fucker. You have truth enough in ignorance, just the same as a religious type?

HE DOES NOT CLAIM TO KNOW THE TRUTH!!!

Christians do.....

He points out the fact that they have ZERO PROOF for there truth claim.

That is really as intellectual as it has to be doesnt it?

I simply wish to point out that his contentedness in ignorance of ultimate beginnings is just the same as the contentedness of religous types in their own ignorance. The notion of the issue being resolved at some definite point in time parallels judgement day of religons so well; that faith that "it'll all work out in the end."

Then that makes you an intellectually lazy fucker. You have truth enough in ignorance, just the same as a religious type?

How does not being pretentious enough to claim to know the truth or foolish enough to provide answers I don't know, make me a "lazy fucker"? It doesn't. If it does by an idiotic definition of yours, then wonderful!

I simply wish to point out that his contentedness in ignorance of ultimate beginnings is just the same as the contentedness of religous types in their own ignorance.Who the hell said I was content in ignorance? Being ignorant, acknowledging that I'm ignorant, and therefore not wanting make ignorant claims, does not mean I'm content with the current affairs of my knowledge. I dream for that ignorance to be replaced with knowledge.

Apparently, if I were to ask you what 2+2 equals, you'd prefer someone take a dump on the floor and point at it (an "answer"), than simply say honestly that he or she does not know. :rolleyes:

And if you do not know something then you will ask or find out on your own, lest you be an intellectually "lazy fucker", yes?

The notion of the issue being resolved at some definite point in time parallels judgement day of religons so well; that faith that "it'll all work out in the end."

Except that Rust's salvation doesn't depend on him knowing. Rust can sleep nights after admitting to the world that not only does not not know for certain, but he is not even sure that he will know for certain in his entire lifetime! This scenario applies to Rust even if, at some point in the future before his demise, he discovers possible answers that may prove to be false later. In the end, Rust's salvation isn't depending on it. Salvation aside, Rust isn't even claiming that it WILL all work itself out in the end!

Judgement Day to the faithful isn't a time of finding out for sure, it's a time of just validating a truth that they've claimed to have known all along. They're the only ones who are so bold to ignorantly assert that "it'll all work out in the end".

There is no parallel to be found here.

And if you do not know something then you will ask or find out on your own, lest you be an intellectually "lazy fucker", yes?

I'll try to find out (whether it be on my own or with someone else is another story) because as I've already said, I dream for that ignorance to be replaced with knowledge.

I don't care about being considered a "lazy fucker" in your eyes because:

a. Your definitions seems foolish and arbitrary.

b. Quite frankly, you're utterly unimportant to me.

P.S. AngryFemme suffers fools much more gracefully so I'll point you to her post if you wish to read a more tactful and eloquent response. :)

Except that Rust's salvation doesn't depend on him knowing. Rust can sleep nights after admitting to the world that not only does not not know for certain, but he is not even sure that he will know for certain in his entire lifetime! This scenario applies to Rust even if, at some point in the future before his demise, he discovers possible answers that may prove to be false later. In the end, Rust's salvation isn't depending on it. Salvation aside, Rust isn't even claiming that it WILL all work itself out in the end!

Judgement Day to the faithful isn't a time of finding out for sure, it's a time of just validating a truth that they've claimed to have known all along. They're the only ones who are so bold to ignorantly assert that "it'll all work out in the end".

There is no parallel to be found here.

I state there is a parallel in the notion of "it all working out in the end" as just that. At some point in time we believe that mysteries will be resolved.

Even so, in the statement:
Judgement Day to the faithful isn't a time of finding out for sure, it's a time of just validating a truth that they've claimed to have known all along

This is exactly what I'm talking about, however, I would have said that they would have believed all along. (Well, to some extent for the atheist at least supposing the truth to everything CAN be found.) The resolution of the Laplace machine in humanity as a whole will be the atheist's judgement day where all will be resolved just the same as the religous judgement day where all will be resolved.

I fail to understand how you cannot see the similarities between our two plights.

I don't care about being considered a "lazy fucker" in your eyes because:

a. Your definitions seems foolish and arbitrary.

b. Quite frankly, you're utterly unimportant to me.

P.S. AngryFemme suffers fools much more gracefully so I'll point you to her post if you wish to read a more tactful and eloquent response.

May I presume that you feel I hold some sort of animus to you? You take my "lazy fucker" comment too personally.

May I presume that you feel I hold some sort of animus to you?

Why would you presume that? Did I say I felt you held some "animus" towards me? No, I did not. Don't try to "presume" what I feel, you're going to fail miserably.

You take my "lazy fucker" comment too personally.And how exactly did you reach that idiotic conclusion? By the fact that I never said I took it personally, or the fact that I believe you're utterly unimportant to me? Brilliant. You are a regular Sherlock Holmes.

I state there is a parallel in the notion of "it all working out in the end" as just that. At some point in time we believe that mysteries will be resolved.

But still no parallel. Rust doesn't believe it will be resolved, necessarily. He dreams of gaining more knowledge about it, he doesn't claim to know for certain that there will be a point in time that the knowledge will find him. For all he knows, he may expire before the knowledge is available to him. For this, he claims to be content.


atheist's judgement day

^ Absurd. What are they being judged on? What they never claimed to have knowledge on to begin with?

I fail to understand how you cannot see the similarities between our two plights.

I fail to see how you made the connection. You could have phrased it several ways - day of reckoning ("I reckon I was right all along! Gee, golly") or day of enlightenment ("Wow! Who knew?") or even day of dawning ... but judgement day? C'mon. We both know the deep and literal meaning people of faith assign to that event.

Exactly. The whole point is that atheists don't have to be in the same "position as deists are on ultimate origin". Atheists don't ave to make a claim (technically neither do theists though religions usually make that a virtue if not an outright requirement); they sure as fuck don't have to believe in that "multiverse" idea that Argon was trotting out - in what seemed like a very blatant and sad attempt at sounding 'smart'.

I'm not in the same position most theists are; I don't make a claim. To this, Argon's response was "you're a lazy fucker" as if, he knew whether or not I am making strides to change that (i.e. my ignorance ) - he doesn't - or as if that somehow changed the fact that I wouldn't be in the same position as he claimed - I wouldn't.