Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am an atheist. The primary reason I am not a theist is that I have never found any good evidence of a god. This viewpoint was made all the more unyielding by the fact that the holy books of some of the more popular religious beliefs contain spectacularly implausible stories, or in some cases, outright goofs. I have wondered; do theist see these gaffes and just not care, or is there something more involved. I mean, I cared which, in turn, led to my atheism.
I decided to start a Youtube channel where I was God's spokesman, his prophet, if you will. The videos are short and not done in a completely serious manner. God is "camera shy" and does not physically appear in the videos which seems almost logical given that God never actually physically appears to anyone in real life. I have made about 30 videos to date. The God for whom I am a prophet has none of the flaws of the more popular gods. He does not kill innocent people en masse because he is angry at a few. He does not view homosexuality as an abomination. He does not disprove of out of wedlock sex. The only stipulations are that the activities do not intrude into the lives of others, everything be consensual, and that everyone is adult.
Also, my "god" never contacted Muhammad and Jesus was not his son. What's more, according to God, neither devils nor angels actually exist. As God laughingly joked, "Nope, angels aren't real, and neither are elves or leprechauns."
The god for whom I am a "prophet" did not create a first human, a story that science has proven to be fictional, rather he devised the concept of evolution, and then stepped back and allowed the process to commence.
My entire motive for the channel was to have religious people come to my channel, watch a few videos, and proclaim that my god was just silly and could never be the genuine god, whereupon I would state that given what science has told us the last few centuries, my god is actually more plausible than any of the popular gods. That was my motive. Now two months into the project, this scenario has happened only three or four times. It is a tough way to get a point across. It's a good thing the entire enterprise is kind of a hoot.
You are going to have to prove that the universe has not always existed. Something existing forever might sound inconceivable, but so is the concept of a god, especially a god sitting in the middle of literally nowhere and concocting the universe. So, get around the possibility of a universe with no chronological beginning, then you can tackle the notion that if the universe did have an initial moment, a god was required. Figure out part #2 and then you can come back and tell me which god is the real god, complete with hard evidence, after all, it does no good in terms of theism if we have no idea what the characteristics are of this god.
There. Now it's been proven. Are you still an atheist? Or are you going to continue to ignore the proof?
No one ignores this argument, but not all agree with its conclusions. For various reasons, e.g.:
The special pleading for a first cause (uncaused cause) is highly suspect.
Causal relations are not truly a priori and the causal chain behind origins are beyond experience and unwise to generalize about.
Even if theres is a First Cause, nothing says it has to be a deity, much less yours.
The argument poses infinite regress issues.
The argument is based on a number of assumptions about the nature and past configurations of time itself. Many mathematical models demonstrate that time simply disappears close to the "big bang". Therefore the question of what came before that point is meaningless.
There. Now it has been shown that nothing has been proven. Are you still a theist? Or are you going to continue to pretend that the cosmological argument proves anything? And still further, pretend that it proves anything conclusively?
No one ignores this argument, but not all agree with its conclusions. For various reasons, e.g.:
The special pleading for a first cause (uncaused cause) is highly suspect.
Causal relations are not truly a priori and the causal chain behind origins are beyond experience and unwise to generalize about.
Even if theres is a First Cause, nothing says it has to be a deity, much less yours.
The argument poses infinite regress issues.
The argument is based on a number of assumptions about the nature and past configurations of time itself. Many mathematical models demonstrate that time simply disappears close to the "big bang". Therefore the question of what came before that point is meaningless.
There. Now it has been shown that nothing has been proven. Are you still a theist? Or are you going to continue to pretend that the cosmological argument proves anything? And still further, pretend that it proves anything conclusively?
It's proof. But proof is different from persuasion. I can lead you to it, but if you're not willing to look at it...nothing we can do.
Nice of you to decide what the choices are and present them to us as a false dichotomy.
Give us a third. Prove it wrong. That's the funny thing with you and your side...you tell us CAN'T be a creator..but you have no other clue what it could be. You're willing to believe all sorts of fairy tales
There. Now it's been proven. Are you still an atheist? Or are you going to continue to ignore the proof?
The Cosmological Argument is proof for the existence of the Giant Space Crabs, not the Christian God. Only the Giant Space Crabs are awesome and powerful enough to have created the universe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.