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.
The bolded part is a flawed base axiom. Its not true enough to base your line of logic off of.
If you knew everything that man knows about the universe and took a test on the all the universe you get a 5%. That 5/100. And you would be the smartest person on the planet for all of history. (about the universe anyway).
The laws actually show that the universe probably started by the natural laws. We just don't know them all yet. It could very be that the god some people believe in was born and it is this universe also. They may be the same thing.
That's why we can't talk about it in this forum, because the anti-godders can't fight that using evidence, commonsense, logic so like all believing sites they run away and hide (kill if they can) from things their faith doesn't like.
The best we can do is compare what we don't know, to things we do know to try and explain things. With the understanding we can our minds based on new information.
A deity like in the bible just doesn't fit. Its just isn't the best we can do. Even with the limited understanding we have.
The bolded part is a flawed base axiom. Its not true enough to base your line of logic off of.
If you knew everything that man knows about the universe and took a test on the all the universe you get a 5%. That 5/100. And you would be the smartest person on the planet for all of history. (about the universe anyway).
The laws actually show that the universe probably started by the natural laws. We just don't know them all yet. It could very be that the god some people believe in was born and it is this universe also. They may be the same thing.
That's why we can't talk about it in this forum, because the anti-godders can't fight that using evidence, commonsense, logic so like all believing sites they run away and hide (kill if they can) from things their faith doesn't like.
The best we can do is compare what we don't know, to things we do know to try and explain things. With the understanding we can our minds based on new information.
A deity like in the bible just doesn't fit. Its just isn't the best we can do. Even with the limited understanding we have.
I have to pinch myself to be sure this is not a bad dream where people are that much out of reality.
"The laws actually show that the universe probably started by the natural laws."
And that's shown by your evidence of...
(blank)
Wow, sure wished I could make up anything I want. How those laws were just there, who knows? You said and somehow it has merit.
The first law shows we can't create or destroy energy by natural means yet to you that law helped create by natural means.
"We just don't know them all yet. It could very be that the god some people believe in was born and it is this universe also. They may be the same thing."
Then ignore what we know and what I gave. You have that freedom but you sure are not making any sense or proving your point.
"The best we can do is compare what we don't know"
Truth is, you want to ignore what we know because it proves you wrong, we can't get this by natural means. You ignore what I gave and fail to get around that basic science. Oh, which I was accused of not being qualified to give. You can't make the stuff up.
"A deity like in the bible just doesn't fit."
From the same person who can't even get around the science I gave and says we don't know, no matter how well-proven those laws are and you really have to go out of your way to show they can be doubted.
Just to clarify. I don't need to be taught "basic science". I have two degrees in geology, with the second having a focus on early Paleozoic invertebrates (Cambrian - Devonian). And, in fact, I taught science for 13 years.
But it doesn't matter. Your posts make it clear that there's nothing any of us could say that you wouldn't have a stock answer for, not based at all on being open-minded.
What you don't seem to understand about atheists -- at least most atheists -- is that we tend to let the chips fall where they may. If there's a god, and it can be proven to a reasonable degree, then there's a god. Whether we, as individuals, would decide to worship that god, well that's up to the individual. And by the way, since you're new here, I do have a religion...Buddhism. And instead of pretending to be able to prove concepts such as reincarnation and past lives, I readily admit that they are not provable; they are what I believe; I don't ask anyone else to believe them.
You seem to think that just because you tromp in here and demand that posters interact with you that we must. You're dead wrong. We have various reasons for deciding who we do and don't interact with. But the reason is never because some new poster demands it. And again, that's not what this forum is about.
Last edited by mensaguy; 06-26-2022 at 04:57 AM..
Reason: Quoted post removed.
Just to clarify. I don't need to be taught "basic science". I have two degrees in geology, with the second having a focus on early Paleozoic invertebrates (Cambrian - Devonian). And, in fact, I taught science for 13 years.
But it doesn't matter. Your posts make it clear that there's nothing any of us could say that you wouldn't have a stock answer for, not based at all on being open-minded.
What you don't seem to understand about atheists -- at least most atheists -- is that we tend to let the chips fall where they may. If there's a god, and it can be proven to a reasonable degree, then there's a god. Whether we, as individuals, would decide to worship that god, well that's up to the individual. And by the way, since you're new here, I do have a religion...Buddhism. And instead of pretending to be able to prove concepts such as reincarnation and past lives, I readily admit that they are not provable; they are what I believe; I don't ask anyone else to believe them.
You seem to think that just because you tromp in here and demand that posters interact with you that we must. You're dead wrong. We have various reasons for deciding who we do and don't interact with. But the reason is never because some new poster demands it. And again, that's not what this forum is about.
"I taught science for 13 years."
Well then why can't you get around the basic science I gave? You sure talk a lot but try producing something. Try showing you got around the basic science I gave and can show the universe came about naturally with no space, matter, and time already there. I think this was made VERY clear from my very first comment.
"But it doesn't matter. Your posts make it clear that there's nothing any of us could say that you wouldn't have a stock answer for, not based at all on being open-minded."
It would matter if someone could do what was asked. If you feel it was done, do copy and paste it. What's been holding you back from doing that?
"What you don't seem to understand about atheists -- at least most atheists -- is that we tend to let the chips fall where they may."
If that were true then you would have admitted you don't follow science. You would have admitted there is NO way nothing...no space, matter, and time can create the universe. I have a whole list of other things you can't get around and I'm only sticking with creation thus far because that is needed to come first.
"If there's a god, and it can be proven to a reasonable degree, then there's a god."
Ok, I did that. I didn't put which God, but I did show there had to be a supernatural creator and said once that is accepted then a person would look for evidence which God did it.
"You seem to think that just because you tromp in here and demand that posters interact with you that we must."
Show me that i tromped in here. I responded to a previous comment and was very civil about. I didn't demand a thing. I stated my case and those who wanted to join in and offer how we got all this by nothing, to feel free to do so. You obviously are adding a whole lot to make me look bad somehow. This is just a slight bit of the examples of unfairness I've been welcomed with. You all are not happy unless you have just people who agree with you so you can fan your egos.
"We have various reasons for deciding who we do and don't interact with."
You chose to interact with me. How is that my fault?
"But the reason is never because some new poster demands it."
Another exaggerated claim about me. Where did I demand it? Yet you still think this is fair to me. Amazing.
"And again, that's not what this forum is about."
Believe me, I see what this forum is about. It's about bullying because you will not admit you simply can't get a creation of the universe by natural means. A simple scientific fact like that upsets you all to the point that you will use any means possible to try to hide that fact.
When I say this forum, I'm only going by the portion of the forum I've been involved with. There are many parts of this forum I'm sure don't involve the unfair practices. You all set the tone very clearly in this segment of the forum though; loud and clear!
Well then why can't you get around the basic science I gave? You sure talk a lot but try producing something. Try showing you got around the basic science I gave and can show the universe came about naturally with no space, matter, and time already there. I think this was made VERY clear from my very first comment.
"But it doesn't matter. Your posts make it clear that there's nothing any of us could say that you wouldn't have a stock answer for, not based at all on being open-minded."
It would matter if someone could do what was asked. If you feel it was done, do copy and paste it. What's been holding you back from doing that?
"What you don't seem to understand about atheists -- at least most atheists -- is that we tend to let the chips fall where they may."
If that were true then you would have admitted you don't follow science. You would have admitted there is NO way nothing...no space, matter, and time can create the universe. I have a whole list of other things you can't get around and I'm only sticking with creation thus far because that is needed to come first.
"If there's a god, and it can be proven to a reasonable degree, then there's a god."
Ok, I did that. I didn't put which God, but I did show there had to be a supernatural creator and said once that is accepted then a person would look for evidence which God did it.
"You seem to think that just because you tromp in here and demand that posters interact with you that we must."
Show me that i tromped in here. I responded to a previous comment and was very civil about. I didn't demand a thing. I stated my case and those who wanted to join in and offer how we got all this by nothing, to feel free to do so. You obviously are adding a whole lot to make me look bad somehow. This is just a slight bit of the examples of unfairness I've been welcomed with. You all are not happy unless you have just people who agree with you so you can fan your egos.
"We have various reasons for deciding who we do and don't interact with."
You chose to interact with me. How is that my fault?
"But the reason is never because some new poster demands it."
Another exaggerated claim about me. Where did I demand it? Yet you still think this is fair to me. Amazing.
"And again, that's not what this forum is about."
Believe me, I see what this forum is about. It's about bullying because you will not admit you simply can't get a creation of the universe by natural means. A simple scientific fact like that upsets you all to the point that you will use any means possible to try to hide that fact.
When I say this forum, I'm only going by the portion of the forum I've been involved with. There are many parts of this forum I'm sure don't involve the unfair practices. You all set the tone very clearly in this segment of the forum though; loud and clear!
Ok, the laws of nature I gave obviously pertain to nature. Those laws show 100% creation can't happen naturally. We only have one choice left, supernaturally.
And I have explained this to you in my first post to you, although you evaded the logic. We will ignore the science paper you also evaded, this is purely a logic problem.
If the laws of nature you gave obviously pertain to nature, then that nature must exist. But you are arguing about absolute nothing, which means absolutely nothing existed, including a god of any kind, and including those laws. You can not argue absolute nothing must follow laws that you also logically argued did not exist. That is still the flaw in your argument, and that does not lead to a supernatural god because the logic of your argument is that absolutely nothing existed, including a god of any kind.
And if laws of any kind did not exist, then there would be nothing to say how absolutely nothing could behave. Nothing.
So the only logical alternative is that there must have been an eternal something. We do not need a god to explain this, it is a logical necessity that if absolutely nothing is not even possible that something must have always existed.
No god is required in either scenario, and no god is possible in the first. So if you want to argue for a god, then you need to provide the extra evidence for that god, what it is made of, how it knows things, how it works, and it must explain things better than any of the alternatives. And we have over 2000 years where the science has always shown it was natural forces, never an intelligent god doing anything.
I have to pinch myself to be sure this is not a bad dream where people are that much out of reality.
"The laws actually show that the universe probably started by the natural laws."
And that's shown by your evidence of...
(blank)
Wow, sure wished I could make up anything I want. How those laws were just there, who knows? You said and somehow it has merit.
Ha, a different argument. How did god's attributes get there? What, they just existed, inherent in god's existence? Then that is how the laws of nature got there, they are inherent properties and behaviors of existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
The first law shows we can't create or destroy energy by natural means yet to you that law helped create by natural means.
And the energy of the universe appears to be zero, so no energy was created or destroyed. Positive, negative; Ying, Yang.
"We just don't know them all yet. It could very be that the god some people believe in was born and it is this universe also. They may be the same thing."
Then ignore what we know and what I gave. You have that freedom but you sure are not making any sense or proving your point.
"The best we can do is compare what we don't know"
Truth is, you want to ignore what we know because it proves you wrong, we can't get this by natural means. You ignore what I gave and fail to get around that basic science. Oh, which I was accused of not being qualified to give. You can't make the stuff up.
No, atheism is based on what we do know. God did it is making assertions, and misrepresenting (or ignoring) the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnnysig
"A deity like in the bible just doesn't fit."
From the same person who can't even get around the science I gave and says we don't know, no matter how well-proven those laws are and you really have to go out of your way to show they can be doubted.
And I explained how the science you misrepresented explains why we are here, AND how it is irrelevant in your absolute nothing scenario.
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.
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.
