Atheist: So you think god created the universe?
Theist: Yes, where do you think it came from?
Atheist: It didn't come from anything, it just exists.
Theist: Haha, so you think it just came from nothing?
Atheist: Well don't you believe god "came from nothing?"
Theist: No, god is eternal.
Atheist: The universe is eternal.

So, where does this conversation go from here? Theist says ""?

Probably something along the lines of

"God is a being, being have the ability to create whereas universes are created"

I don't know since I'm an athiest but someone reply. I'm curious.
<3

Theist says well research has shown the universe to be a. in a state of oscillation which means it had to come from somewhere or b. that it is ever-expanding which implies some sort of point of explosion.
Atheist says study up on papers and records from affluent metaphysicists/quantum physicists which show virtual particles to come into and out of existence using borrowed energy from the entire system. These could be the cause. But... I don't know for sure and neither do you.

Prove it with your atheist empiricism?

God loves you, how could you be so cruel as to reject God's love? Therefore God exists.

God loves you, how could you be so cruel as to reject God's love? Therefore God exists.

proof?

A thiest will respond that we logically know the unicorn is invisible b/c we cannot see it, we have faith that it is pink.

There is no where esle for this argument to go. Both sides must contend that they DO NOT HAVE a real answer.

The big bang is AN event; there is nothing to suggest it is or is not THE (first) event.


I just found this quote, I rather like it:
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish

God loves you, how could you be so cruel as to reject God's love? Therefore God exists.

This seems like a perfectly sound argument...

Prove it with your atheist empiricism?

How would the atheist respond to this one?

The definition of the universe as everything that ever was, is or will be can easily encompass theism, but only on the condition that ‘universe’ is merely a nomenclature for a collection of objects, because then God can be designated the very first object in the collection or series. So for an atheist to say the universe always was in any meaningful sense, he will have to demonstrate that it is a single unconscious substance or process, akin to Spinozism, for example, and that we are all one. If, on the other hand, he does consent to the notion of the universe being a mere nomenclature, then he will be on just about the same footing as the theist: the first object always was or came from nothingness, but something cannot come from nothing, or so it is said, and if there was an infinite amount of time before this time, an always, then this moment shouldn’t be because one would first have to run through an unlimited amount of time before reaching it (this seems to me to have more to do with analytic thought and our mathematical conception of the universe than with the universe itself). The difference here is that the atheist does not speculate about the nature of the first object, assign consciousness to it, or anthropomorphize it. Either way, I do not believe my summary does justice to the topic of cosmology, that it is far more complicated than it at first seems (simple divisions of finite/infinite, something/nothing, won’t do), but that it’s a start for this topic at least.

The bible is bullshit.

The bible is bullshit.

highlight'd for truth

The thing is, the universe isn't eternal, cosmologists can trace back the time of the big bang to 14ish billion years ago by a line of regression, and time (as most physicists know it to be) will end some day, regardless of the universe's ultimate fate (unless entropy can somehow be reversed), and by that time, a) humans will not be around to witness anything so time as an observer-based entity will cease, and b) there will be no changes at all that occur as the universe moves towards ultimate stability, the universe might be there, but since there is no change, time will effectively cease at point of the last element of change.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death

In summary, the universe isn't eternal, but it does last for a REALLY long time. The problem with your argument, Hare_Geist, is that you think mere existence implies a time function. It doesn't.

The thing is, the universe isn't eternal, cosmologists can trace back the time of the big bang to 14ish billion years ago by a line of regression, and time (as most physicists know it to be) will end some day

One of the main problems with the Big Bang theory is that at the moment of the Big Bang, there is a singularity of zero volume and infinite energy.

However, research purported to show that a previously existing universe collapsed, not to the point of singularity, but to a point before that where gravity becomes so strongly repulsive that it rebounds back out, forming a new universe.

There is much valid speculation of the universe's origins and ends. Big rip, big crunch, big bounce. Many different things, all have problems and all have points.

Even in heat death the mostly matterless space that makes up the universe will still be, except it will be completely empty of matter. Perhaps this complete void SOMEHOW triggers another big bang, sucking matter out of another dimensional universe like a squashed plastic bottle sucks up water.

The point is, scientists do not know that the universe is or is not eternal. The universe being eternal or an eternal God are EQUALLY ignorant arguments, with this exception:

The universe being eternal does have at least one piece of evidence over God being eternal, and that is the quite apparent evidence of the universe itself.

However, research purported

Link?

There is much valid speculation of the universe's origins and ends. Big rip, big crunch, big bounce. Many different things, all have problems and all have points.
You can't fool the law of entropy, even in successive big crunches, there will be less and less matter to go around and mere photons will remain. No change=no time.

The universe being eternal does have at least one piece of evidence over God being eternal, and that is the quite apparent evidence of the universe itself.

So because it's quite evident that I have an orange in my hand, it's safe to assume that it's eternal?

So because it's quite evident that I have an orange in my hand, it's safe to assume that it's eternal?

Nah, man. But the orange in your hand is evidence that the orange exists right now, at least. Which is more definitive than anything you can say about God. Which is why any eternal universe theory holds more ground than any eternal god theory.

Although this validates nothing.

Nah, man. But the orange in your hand is evidence that the orange exists right now, at least. Which is more definitive than anything you can say about God. Which is why any eternal universe theory holds more ground than any eternal god theory.

Although this validates nothing.

The argument isn't about whether or not God exists (right now or at all), it's about whether or not He's eternal, and He obviously is or else the argument wouldn't work that way (though I'm sure there's some theology behind it too ;)). Simply put, the thread is about the argument, not the existence of God.

An eternal God as a concept has more truth to it than a universe as a reality because concepts are by nature undisprovable, while it's certain (if the laws of thermodynamics are correct) that the universe isn't. Thus, if one came upon an intelligent theist with this argument, he/she would respond "no, the universe is not eternal, [cites facts]", in which case you'd be royally fucked.

By saying the universe "always was", you're denying science, a key tenet of atheism.

science, a key tenet of atheism.

Nonsense.

The argument isn't about whether or not God exists (right now or at all), it's about whether or not He's eternal, and He obviously is or else the argument wouldn't work that way (though I'm sure there's some theology behind it too ;)). Simply put, the thread is about the argument, not the existence of God.


The fact that God is part of the argument (whether it's about an eternal universe or an eternal God) means that the existence of God can be called into question at any time.

The fact that God is part of the argument (whether it's about an eternal universe or an eternal God) means that the existence of God can be called into question at any time.

I suppose the existence of the universe could be called into question at any time as well, thus every single debate that humanity can conjure boils down to "is perception reality"?

The atheist must make some amends for the sake of discussion.

Nonsense.

*Atheistic thought, sorry.

Is it possible that the universe hasn't always existed in the way that we know it? That the laws of thermodynamics haven't always been the same? That the laws of nature were created or changed by the big bang? I realize this idea is probably unfalsifiable, or just plain incompetent.


Edit:
I suppose the existence of the universe could be called into question at any time as well, thus every single debate that humanity can conjure boils down to "is perception reality"?

We don't need perception to validate existence. I think therefore I am. If you're just a brain in a jar or something, you're still a brain in a jar. Just the fact that you are perceiving is enough to validate existence. There's no such thing as nothing. There's a reason zero isn't in the set of natural numbers. amirite?

I could never understand the philosophy that nothing exists.

*Atheistic thought, sorry.

Again, any claims to "atheistic tenets" other than disbelief in God is nonsense, because atheism is a single disbelief. For example, BrokenProphet seems to think science has, or will have, the answer to everything, but I am both an atheist and highly critical of scientific methods.

Is it possible that the universe hasn't always existed in the way that we know it? That the laws of thermodynamics haven't always been the same? That the laws of nature were created or changed by the big bang? I realize this idea is probably unfalsifiable, or just plain incompetent.

It is unfalsifiable and goes against the atheist's own reason. Even if the atheist knew that the universe was eternal, he/she would have no way of demonstrating why, whereas the theist (if he/she is a Christian and knows their Scripture) responds with "I don't know". The atheist drowns in his/her own logic. Surely "I don't know" is better than "We'll never know".

We don't need perception to validate existence. I think therefore I am. If you're just a brain in a jar or something, you're still a brain in a jar. Just the fact that you are perceiving is enough to validate existence. There's no such thing as nothing. There's a reason zero isn't in the set of natural numbers. amirite?

I could never understand the philosophy that nothing exists.

I was talking about the universe. Even if I was just a brain in a jar, would that prove the universe exists? Surely not.

Wow most of that is incoherent. I had a better post yesterday before vB crashed. :mad: Sorry.

Theist: But... but... uhhh... It is more likely something created the universe!

Atheist: No it isn't. Various scientific hypothesis, such as the string theory and the big crunch theory explain an infinite universe. The universe is made up of matter and energy, forces which we can detect and which are rather simple. On the other hand, God is an infinitely complex, illogical, unreasonable, and unrational being. What forces led to the creation of such an infinitely complex being, so complex that we cannot even comprehend it? The idea of God is simply contradictory, we cannot postulate that an infinitely complex being came before a simple one, as all complex things come from more simpler versions. Therefore, it is more likely that the universe is infinite than it is that God exists and He is infinite.

I was talking about the universe. Even if I was just a brain in a jar, would that prove the universe exists? Surely not.

Where's the jar and where's your brain, then?

Where's the jar and where's your brain, then?

In a realm unknown to man. Perhaps I live on an asteroid, even though I need an atmosphere to survive on earth, the laws of nature are different where I live (which might be in a universe, and might not be, who knows?). Something has to exist, but a universe doesn't. A brain in a jar could exist solely by itself, regardless of where it its.

In a realm unknown to man. Perhaps I live on an asteroid, even though I need an atmosphere to survive on earth, the laws of nature are different where I live (which might be in a universe, and might not be, who knows?). Something has to exist, but a universe doesn't. A brain in a jar could exist solely by itself, regardless of where it its.

Yes, something has to exist. If a brain exists by itself, that brain is the universe. The universe is everything that exists anywhere. That's it's definition. You can't have something exist and not be in the/a universe.

Yes, something has to exist. If a brain exists by itself, that brain is the universe. The universe is everything that exists anywhere. That's it's definition. You can't have something exist and not be in the/a universe.

The definition of everything is all that exists anywhere, the universe is just a part of that.:p

In that case, what's between the multiverses?

God only knows.

Suppose you happen to know that the name of God means 'Necessary Being'?

It doesn't matter if it makes logical sense. Take a good look at life and it won't take long to realize that logic is useless in everything but math. Math is quite useful, though; it can explain every single working of the universe except how it came to be. Now, suppose the universe IS eternal (no creator). Suppose then that it has inerrant laws that govern the existence of everything within it (you know, things like gravity, inertia, entropy, etc). Isn't the Universe now fitting the precise definition of God? That which was not created and governs all else?

Ah, but why flow with the Law when you can keep making excuses to try things your way? It might have something to do with pride...after all, accepting that everything that exists will continue no matter what happens to you isn't all that exciting.

But God is flamboyant, he has no laws that he must always follow and has an innate consciousness that controls his decisions. What about the universe implies an innate livelihood that continues to manifest itself? Is it this chemical process we call life? Perhaps we are like the Flatlanders, looking upon the universe and seeing normality where there is only the incomprehensible.

I guess the universe really is God after all.

But God is flamboyant, he has no laws that he must always follow and has an innate consciousness that controls his decisions. What about the universe implies an innate livelihood that continues to manifest itself? Is it this chemical process we call life? Perhaps we are like the Flatlanders, looking upon the universe and seeing normality where there is only the incomprehensible.

I guess the universe really is God after all.

Well, God gets to do whatever the fuck he wants to do without question...that's kind of why we call it God instead of servant. We don't get to hurl giant balls of matter through space at tremendous speeds...we get to ride on them (and perhaps enjoy the ride so long as we're alive), but we don't get to do much else in that frame of reference. Truth is, we don't get to do much of anything...we can either serve our pride or serve God. Now, serving God really isn't all that bad. He lets us try anything and everything, forgives every fuck-up we've ever made and will make, and will even give us intuitive thoughts from time to time to help guide us in the right direction until we've learned.

Serving pride though...well that just blows. Sure, you get to continually make the same mistakes over and over again and still think you're perfect. After awhile though, you start to feel like there's no real reason to live except to get others to feel like there's no real reason to live.

It doesn't matter if it makes logical sense. Take a good look at life and it won't take long to realize that logic is useless in everything but math.

Yet you're implicitly using logic to communicate that ridiculous claim to us. How ironic.

Isn't the Universe now fitting the precise definition of God? That which was not created and governs all else?You mean your 'precise definition of a god'. Most people would say that a god should be conscious, preferably benevolent.

Though I don't doubt the pathetic rationalizations you can pull to justify calling the universe "conscious".

Yes. Let's call the universe god! I simply don't believe in any other gods but the universe. Great. You've achieved nothing.


It might have something to do with pride...after all, accepting that everything that exists will continue no matter what happens to you isn't all that exciting.And the atheist doesn't accept just that when (if) he believes there is no afterlife? If I die, I believe the universe will continue without out me; quite fine actually.

Serving pride though...well that just blows. Sure, you get to continually make the same mistakes over and over again and still think you're perfect. After awhile though, you start to feel like there's no real reason to live except to get others to feel like there's no real reason to live.

Speak for yourself, friend. I don't believe in God and I know I'm nowhere near being perfect. True I don't think our lives are special or meaningful, but I don't force my views on others. Thinking that we're made in the image of some perfect being is egotistical. You think we're divine? We're just fucking monkeys, how's that for being proud? :mad:

I have no idea what you mean when you say we get to continually make the same mistakes. Care to elaborate, maybe give some examples?

Though I don't doubt the pathetic rationalizations you can pull to justify calling the universe "conscious".

Are you a part of the universe? Are you conscious? We are just as much a part of the universe as the inanimate. We are the consciousness of the universe. It's self aware, man. :o

But I do agree that calling the universe God is just pointlessly defining God into existence.

Are you a part of the universe? Are you conscious? We are just as much a part of the universe as the inanimate. We are the consciousness of the universe. It's self aware, man. :o


How fucking groovy man!

I have to use logic and reason to communicate with people, because the only non-logical part of communication is the trust or distrust of its truthfulness.

This is an absolute fact: God is.

Now, that is an entirely true statement...he has a Voice, Eyes, and many qualities we humans have called a variety of things; Love, Compassion, Faith, Wrath...God is the necessary being that enables anything else to exist. God is the piece of the puzzle, completely incomprehensible, that makes the impossible fact of existence possible.

Of course though, pride begets fear, and fear inhibits faith, so nobody will believe what I just typed unless they have been humbled by facing their fears (with the rare exception of those so desperate for new life that they entirely ignore fear and charge headfirst into the void, hoping God really is there). For those who have faced their fears and seen their inability to live without god, God has already revealed itself to them...so really, they didn't need to read it in the first place.

Those that need to hear have no ears to listen with.
Those that have already heard can only nod their heads and smile.

And I'm really pushing my time, I might stop in tomorrow to see if anyone's spoken heart instead of ego.

Everything that's been said so far along with everything in the world and the universe are just manifestations of my mind. So when I die, everything's going to dissappear. I am everyone's existence.

See... I can make bullshit up too.

I have to use logic and reason to communicate with people, because the only non-logical part of communication is the trust or distrust of its truthfulness.

This is an absolute fact: God is."

Please provide evidence for this statement.

"Now, that is an entirely true statement...he has a Voice, Eyes, and many qualities we humans have called a variety of things; Love, Compassion, Faith, Wrath...God is the necessary being that enables anything else to exist. God is the piece of the puzzle, completely incomprehensible, that makes the impossible fact of existence possible."

Please provide evidence for this statement.

"Of course though, pride begets fear, and fear inhibits faith, so nobody will believe what I just typed unless they have been humbled by facing their fears (with the rare exception of those so desperate for new life that they entirely ignore fear and charge headfirst into the void, hoping God really is there)."

Strawman. Faith is not a viable method for acquiring knowledge, even if this vague "fear" somehow inhibited it.

"For those who have faced their fears and seen their inability to live without god, God has already revealed itself to them...so really, they didn't need to read it in the first place."

Irrelevant. You've failed to establish your premise, that God is real. There are many people that live their lives well without your irrational belief in the supernatural, therefore they do not "need" your god or any other.

"Those that need to hear have no ears to listen with.
Those that have already heard can only nod their heads and smile."

Irrelevant, if not offensive statement. ("You're basically screwed unless you already believe.") Thanks.

"And I'm really pushing my time, I might stop in tomorrow to see if anyone's spoken heart instead of ego.

If you can provide proof that this god of yours is more than just bad fiction, I will have no problem accepting that proof, because learning is a good thing. Logic and history however, suggest that you will remain unable to do so.

"There is a principle which is bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

-Herbert Spencer

Surak; I've lived on many bases of life, ranging from solipsism to humanitarianism. As much as I value logic, and reason, I've come to understand that the portions of life worth experiencing have no evidence; nobody who hasn't had it happen themselves will believe.

You have contempt for faith already - and don't try to pretend you don't: you spend time on the internet trying to discount with logic the faith of another person.

Deny it as much as you want, ask for evidence as much as you want...no amount of evidence (of which there is a Universe full of it) or corroborating experiences (of which there are billions) would do the least bit of good to convince you of the reality of the Spirit, so I'm not going to waste my time.

Call this judgment if you want - if you feel offended, perhaps it's true? I don't hold any of it against you though, that's what separates perception from judgment. I've been there, I know what it's about; my hope is that you spend less time in the dark than I did.

Good luck, Surak.

Looks like someone's been hitting the mushies.

Looks like someone's been hitting the mushies.

Sunshine Underground? That was a beautiful song for the mushie trip. Still a beautiful song without mushies. :)

Sunshine Underground? That was a beautiful song for the mushie trip. Still a beautiful song without mushies. :)

Damn I'm good. :)