• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Big Bang Theory runs into the same problem that every other theory that doesn't include God in the equation does. You must explain the origin of matter. Failure to do so makes all of the rest of no consequence whatsoever.
No, not at all. "I don't know" has never been an excuse for the existence of a god. You are shifting the burden of proof, a sign that you know that there is no evidence for your beliefs. But don't worry. It has been explained. Google search for "A universe from nothing".

The absence of God's existence never scared me. In truth, I never really thought of the world in those terms. I did very much prefer to think of Him as distant and uninvolved with our daily lives, because I was quite ashamed of myself in pretty much all respects, and because I preferred to stay in my sins. We all prefer autonomy and being our own god, it's no state relegated solely to atheists.

It doesn't scare me either. But your shame indicates that you took certain aspects of your Christian upbringing to seriously. A problem common to many theists.

There was a point when I came to believe and actually accept that although I knew God was going to save me eventually, that I was going to die a painful death and go to Hell, and that there I would suffer for however long I needed to before I'd paid my last pennies. I had absolutely no hope in this world.

Shortly afterward, He revealed Himself to me. Yes, I know that God exists, it's no longer a question of "if" in my mind. I know 100,000% that He is real, that He is intimately involved in every aspect of everyone's lives, and that we have no power to discover Him until He chooses to reveal Himself to us. Even searching for Him with all your heart is a gift, and His work, not our own.

If you "know" that God exists then you can prove it. Otherwise you merely have belief, just like believers in countless other religions that have made the same claim.

I DO have many answers, but whether or not you can receive them is another matter entirely.

If you have reliable evidence let's hear it . That would be a first here.

And I understand that many people claim to know. It surely does create problems. You have to decide for yourself and on a case-by-case basis which claims are worth investigating and which aren't. I can't help you there.

Oh oh, it sounds like you are preparing to back out of your claims.

There is no reason to believe that the afterlife will be much different in the physical sense. However, no, everything is not "hunky dory" in the next life if you die unsaved.

Everyone has to take up their cross at some point. You will take up yours either in this life or the next; it's unavoidable:

"...strengthening the souls of the disciples and encouraging them to continue in the faith. 'We must endure many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,' they said." (Acts 14:22)

"Then Jesus said to all of them, “If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me.…" (Luke 9:22)

Oh and as for evil, I would refer you to this paper on the subject:

The Purpose of Evil

There is no reason to believe in a life after death in the first place. After that failure I lost interest.


If you have valid evidence for your beliefs you will find a receptive audience here. That is what I am waiting for.

ETA: And your paper pretty much negates itself from the onset by pretending that a mythical event actually happened.
 
Last edited:

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
And there is an obvious difference between the two arguments. On the one hand, you are discussing things from a perspective based on laws and limitations, i.e. the natural. I am talking about God here, Who is supernatural and not subject to laws or limitations. He can have no beginning; creation cannot. You MUST follow everything that doesn't have the power to create back to a creator, and that creator MUST be supernatural,
Blithering nonsense. Read my post number 131 and answer it.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
The Big Bang Theory runs into the same problem that every other theory that doesn't include God in the equation does. You must explain the origin of matter. Failure to do so makes all of the rest of no consequence whatsoever.
Read my post 131.
And I understand that many people claim to know. It surely does create problems. You have to decide for yourself and on a case-by-case basis which claims are worth investigating and which aren't. I can't help you there.
Sure you theists can help us. First you must decide among yourselves which gods do or don't exist. Then you must decide which of your holy books are correct. And when you have managed to sort out yourselves, first then can you expect to be taken seriously by atheists.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
The Big Bang Theory runs into the same problem that every other theory that doesn't include God in the equation does. You must explain the origin of matter. Failure to do so makes all of the rest of no consequence whatsoever.
This is false. You don't need to understand where a ball comes from in order to analyze and understand how a ball rolls down a hill, and you don't need to understand the origin of mass in order to understand how the Universe in its current form emerged from a singular point and expanded outwards. The idea that you should include God in the equation to make sense of it is contradictory, since God doesn't actually provide an explanation, and you would subsequently need to explain the origin of God.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You called yourself ignorant when you said you didn't know (using words like "may" mean you don't know, thus you are ignorant of the truth).
I AM ignorant of the truth. Never said I wasn't... your audacity stems from you calling me ignorant... which specifically means that you think you aren't, or that you have some form of knowledge over me.

I am talking about God here, Who is supernatural and not subject to laws or limitations. He can have no beginning; creation cannot. You MUST follow everything that doesn't have the power to create back to a creator, and that creator MUST be supernatural, in order to not be subject to the natural (laws). It's a perfectly logical explanation that you're throwing out the window because you simply can't, or refuse, to process it.
Prove it.

The fact is I can make the same sorts of assertions about... well... about anything really. Watch how this works: Flying invisible gnomes are actually the originators of the universe. They exist in a dimension separate from ours and therefore are not subject to our universe's rules. They, in fact, created our universe's rules as a grand experiment. Their dimension is parallel to ours, and they use special goggles to see all that is going on, and tweak things as necessary without being seen. They have no creator, for they are the basis of all creation and have existed throughout all of time. They are above the natural world, and are therefore supernatural. I mean... our universe and everything in it had to have some creator, right? Since, like you, in your infinite non-ignorance stated - logically all things that don't have the power to create must have a creator. So, this is a perfectly logical explanation - don't be one of those silly-billies who "[throw it] out the window" now, okay?

If God intended we should have proof, then we would have it. We're not supposed to have proof, therefore you will never find it.
Like I just said, the gnomes are invisible. So it stands to reason they don't want you to see them, and because they are so much more highly advanced than we are, you never will see them. You just have to listen to ME and believe in trust that they are real. Oh... and did I forget the part about how each week they want you to deposit $50 into an envelope and mail it to a specific person on Earth? This is to further their research goals, and they promise to make only positive coincidences happen to you while you are making donations. PM me if you want the address of the person.

Don't you find it compelling that there is pretty much nothing that is useless? Mind-boggling. Do you not agree?
Oh my gosh. We JUST established that intrinsic value in ANYTHING does not exist, and yet here you are, back on that kick. Is this some kind of short-term memory thing? We find uses for things... they don't have objective value or use. Maybe you should write this on a chalkboard a hundred times or something.

Sorry, but how do YOU know that he didn't just start the Earth out with fertile soil? How can you have any idea at all how the Earth was created when all men can do is theorize?
So, why do you feel that examination of the geological strata, and coming to the observable conclusion that the soil of the past was not as teeming with decaying/dead once-living matter is completely impossible? You do understand that even things like worms and leaves and insects leave fossils and detectable geological evidence behind right? I mean, we're not talking about theories here. Based on the observable rate of life-to-death cycles of the major contributors to fertile soil, and the caliber at which much soil exists today, one could easily conclude with very high certainty that the current condition of the top soil of the Earth is only met by millions of years of leaves, worms, insects, dying and decaying animals, etc. having passed by. If God just "poofed" the soil here, then why does it contain those particles of leaves/worms/insects/animals/etc.? Why are there fossils? Was that just about obscuring His existence? He wants us in the dark so badly that He is willing to LIE to protect his anonymity? I have to admit, that actually sounds more plausible than the whole "for God so loved the world" bit.

Sure it did, why would you think it didn't? Do you think the first human beings couldn't sing or create rhythms? Not that I even said that, but your question is bizarre so I thought I'd respond.
I can admit that the potential for music always existed, sure. But there weren't always humans to recognize it as an art form. And last I checked, things like bacteria aren't grooving to tunes. You want to talk about "bizarre" - try arguing that there always have been humans in existence. Go ahead, I'll wait.




And again, billions of years in the making is conjecture.

Of course, you'll come back and say, look at carbon dating and all of that. I'm not going to get into all of that with you or anyone else. It's junk science that only works when assumptions aren't made to do the dating. That's another argument that you can have with someone who finds the discipline credible, because I don't.
This right here is your rejection of completely observable truths. And in their place you substitute a HUGE unobservable fantasy.



These are your own words right here: We don't have any clue the origins of the "laws" that govern this universe. There may be no origin.

What KenS said may have been poorly worded, but what he said does make perfect sense. You said it makes no sense whatsoever that the existence of laws implies the necessity of a Creator, and then your argument is "we don't have any clue." So yeah, I'd call that citing ignorance as knowledge. If you have no knowledge, then how do you have any right to even participate in an argument?
Please... I have knowledge that we have no knowledge - that's what i bring to the table. Note that when I said "There may be no origin" that that wasn't me ASSERTING that there was no origin. That was me, proving to you that there exist plausible alternatives to "God." And because of that, THE JURY IS STILL OUT. Until God is proven to exist beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt... well... there you have it. You're simply not being reasonable if you say you "know."

We DO have a clue, because logic tells us absolutely, positively and even demonstrably that something cannot come from nothing, and that therefore the origin of matter and everything that comes with it had to come from a Creator. God necessarily exists. To say otherwise is, as I've said, insanity.
Am I literally the only person who has ever disagreed with you? To my knowledge you're calling an awful lot of people "insane." And what in the world is necessary about God's existence? Since even you stated that God will never make himself proven, apparently doing all He can to make sure no one ever catches hide or hair of him, what makes the universe without God any different than a universe with God, even if He exists? Do you even know?

As I mentioned earlier in this post, you're completely ignoring the fact that God, being omnipotent, is not subject to the same laws of His creation. I never said that everything has to have had a beginning, by the way. Obviously if I'm making this argument, then God is exempt.
Again... prove it.

And yes, it is impossible that our universe and the material in it is the base of existence. That simply makes absolutely no sense. Why would matter just "be there"? The notion is patently absurd!
Look to your left... matter. Look to your right... matter. Look at yourself... matter. All of it is "just there." Where else is it? What other forces can you observe at work on that matter? You're saying you know where it came from? And you call my ideas absurd?!?

I will give you that it's a difficult thing for our minds to comprehend that God had no beginning. It's almost a frightful thing when we consider it. What sort of power would such a being have? How long is an existence that has no beginning?
It doesn't matter if God exists or not if He is unwilling to make Himself known. He may as well not be there at all if He isn't going to "be there." Everything we see that is active in the universe is based on periods of refresh. Refresh of energies, refresh of forces, refresh of ideas. But God does nothing from generation to generation to refresh His existence with the fresh set of humans on Earth. And don't you just have to wonder whether that's simply because He is unwilling... or because He doesn't exist at all?

When you throw out phrases like "your precious God," and I could be wrong here, but I get the impression that you're either searching for an answer because you genuinely want to know, or you're searching for an excuse to ignore Him.
It is not difficult at all to ignore that which I do not believe exists. What's hard to ignore are blatant fabrications that are pushed as "the truth."

Either way, the reason you don't know is because you've not sought Him with all your heart:
My heart is a muscle that pumps blood through my body. What are you saying here?

The good news is that everyone has to go through what you're going through, and eventually, one way or another, you'll come to see the truth, because God has determined "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.…" (Philippians 2:10) One day, He will be your "precious God" as well, and in fact He already is.
I see, you think I am "going through a phase." How about the rest of the world? I have seen figures/surveys/charts that non-religiosity is on the rise throughout sections of the world. Or is that a sign of the end times? I can never keep up with the current version of the story.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
If you find that convincing, you're welcome to it. I don't.
Exodus is conventionally dated c.1440 - 1280BCE. Nomads leave little evidence behind except latrines and fire pits, which would not last 3000 years - especially in a desert.
And 2 million is undoubtedly an exaggerated number.


You mean to say the bible contains inaccuracies?
 
Blithering nonsense. Read my post number 131 and answer it.

Your post and the video you posted is blithering nonsense, and I've heard it all before. No one understands why these particles blink in and out of existence, therefore you can't claim to have emptied the vacuum of space. And either way, where did those particles come from? They're something, and that means they came from somewhere, if we're applying the first law of thermodynamics.

Even the vacuum of space itself is something, and had to have come from somewhere. Otherwise, there would literally be nothing at all, no space in which any kind of matter could even exist.

Read my post 131.Sure you theists can help us. First you must decide among yourselves which gods do or don't exist. Then you must decide which of your holy books are correct. And when you have managed to sort out yourselves, first then can you expect to be taken seriously by atheists.

Even the Bible has been corrupted by men, because the true final authority is Jesus Christ Himself. Without Him, the Bible is meaningless to the reader; understanding must come from God, or they are just words on a page.

I have no responsibility to convince any religious person or non-religious person that I'm correct. I am simply here to declare the Truth to you. Not because I am trying to turn you; I'm truly not, though I'd be ecstatic if anyone here became convinced. My responsibility is simply to speak, and God will do what He will do.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Your post and the video you posted is blithering nonsense, and I've heard it all before. No one understands why these particles blink in and out of existence, therefore you can't claim to have emptied the vacuum of space. And either way, where did those particles come from? They're something, and that means they came from somewhere, if we're applying the first law of thermodynamics.

Even the vacuum of space itself is something, and had to have come from somewhere. Otherwise, there would literally be nothing at all, no space in which any kind of matter could even exist.



Even the Bible has been corrupted by men, because the true final authority is Jesus Christ Himself. Without Him, the Bible is meaningless to the reader; understanding must come from God, or they are just words on a page.

I have no responsibility to convince any religious person or non-religious person that I'm correct. I am simply here to declare the Truth to you. Not because I am trying to turn you; I'm truly not, though I'd be ecstatic if anyone here became convinced. My responsibility is simply to speak, and God will do what He will do.

Particles had to come from somewhere..

So they always existed, just not where they are now-?

"where" is in one of the three dimensions, like, moved in from the north or-?

Would you say that math would exist even if nothing physical existed?
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Your post and the video you posted is blithering nonsense, and I've heard it all before. No one understands why these particles blink in and out of existence, therefore you can't claim to have emptied the vacuum of space. And either way, where did those particles come from? They're something, and that means they came from somewhere, if we're applying the first law of thermodynamics.
"Emptied the vacuum of space."? Somebody spoonfed you most of this didn't they including the lines about the first law of thermodynamics (which doesn't apply in this context) and just sent you out in the world to repeat what they said... but you give yourself away by trying to improvize and stray from the manuscript...
Even the Bible has been corrupted by men, because the true final authority is Jesus Christ Himself. Without Him, the Bible is meaningless to the reader; understanding must come from God, or they are just words on a page.

I have no responsibility to convince any religious person or non-religious person that I'm correct. I am simply here to declare the Truth to you. Not because I am trying to turn you; I'm truly not, though I'd be ecstatic if anyone here became convinced. My responsibility is simply to speak, and God will do what He will do.
It's shameful how theists without a conscience take simple innocent sheep and send them out among the wolves unprepared.
 
I AM ignorant of the truth. Never said I wasn't... your audacity stems from you calling me ignorant... which specifically means that you think you aren't, or that you have some form of knowledge over me.

Prove it.

How am I audacious for pointing out something you yourself claim is true? To call someone ignorant isn't an insult. I was merely pointing out a fact.

And yes, I do have knowledge over you. Sure, I could recount any number of supernatural events that have happened to me as "proof," but you would still have to believe them.

Ultimately, you're asking for a sign. Jesus Christ called such a thing wickedness.

My knowledge comes from faith:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

And who are you to say that my definition of knowledge isn't equally as valid as yours? Just because your standards of proof are different than mine doesn't mean my proof is worthless. It may be to you, but I can claim with total assurance that I am 100% correct. I know. You do not.

Not that I know what I know through any virtue of my own:

"For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:9)

The fact is I can make the same sorts of assertions about... well... about anything really. Watch how this works: Flying invisible gnomes are actually the originators of the universe. They exist in a dimension separate from ours and therefore are not subject to our universe's rules. They, in fact, created our universe's rules as a grand experiment. Their dimension is parallel to ours, and hey use special goggles to see all that is going on, and tweak things as necessary without being seen. They have no creator, for they are the basis of all creation and have existed throughout all of time. They are above the natural world, and are therefore supernatural. I mean... our universe and everything in it had to have some creator, right? Since, like you, in your infinite non-ignorance stated - logically all things that don't have the power to create must have a creator. So, this is a perfectly logical explanation - don't be one of those silly-billies who "[throw it] out the window" now, okay?


Like I just said, the gnomes are invisible. So it stands to reason they don't want you to see them, and because they are so mush more highly advanced than we are, you never will see them. You just have to listen to ME and believe in trust that they are real. Oh... and did I forget the part about how each week they want you to deposit $50 into an envelope and mail it to a specific person on Earth? This is to further their research goals, and they promise to make only positive coincidences happen to you while you are making donations. PM me if you want the address of the person.

You're being deliberately obnoxious. I can also say that there might be an actual pig that can fly, just as you can say something might be able to come from nothing or just exist somehow. Prove to me that there is no such pig!

Oh my gosh. We JUST established that intrinsic value in ANYTHING does not exist, and yet here you are, back on that kick. Is this some kind of short-term memory thing? We find uses for things... they don't have objective value or use. Maybe you should write this on a chalkboard a hundred times or something.

Just because we find uses for things doesn't mean God created them ignorant of what those uses would be. Why is He unable to impute value before a use is discovered? You place unreasonable limits on The Almighty.

So, why do you feel that examination of the geological strata, and coming to the observable conclusion that the soil of the past was not as teeming with decaying/dead once-living matter is completely impossible? You do understand that even things like worms and leaves and insects leave fossils and detectable geological evidence behind right? I mean, we're not talking about theories here. Based on the observable rate of life-to-death cycles of the major contributors to fertile soil, and the caliber at which much soil exists today, one could easily conclude with very high certainty that the current condition of the top soil of the Earth is only met by millions of years of leaves, worms, insects, dying and decaying animals, etc. having passed by. If God just "poofed" the soil here, then why does it contain those particles of leaves/worms/insects/animals/etc.? Why are there fossils? Was that just about obscuring His existence? He wants us in the dark so badly that He is willing to LIE to protect his anonymity? I have to admit, that actually sounds more plausible than the whole "for God so loved the world bit."

I merely know that examination of geological strata is junk science because of the assumptions made in the radiometric dating process. It is severely, severely and provably flawed.

I'm not going to go back and examine exactly what I was trying to get across here, except that certain things are explainable by the Lord's omnipotence. Many point to the fact that light from distant stars would have to travel for much greater lengths of time than is possible from a creationist standpoint; why can't God have created that light already here? That's not a lie any more than creating something from nothing violates the laws of physics and should therefore be considered a deception of some kind.


I can admit that the potential for music always existed, sure. But there weren't always humans to recognize it as an art form. And last I checked, things like bacteria aren't grooving to tunes. You want to talk about "bizarre" - try arguing that there always have been humans in existence. Go ahead, I'll wait.

I'm not going to argue about evolution with you, because evolution is just as insane as the Big Bang Theory. It's just foolishness. God creating a man from the elements is not at all bizarre, just as creating something from nothing isn't bizarre if the Lord did it supernaturally, which He of course did. f

This right here is your rejection of completely observable truths. And in their place you substitute a HUGE unobservable fantasy.

Please... I have knowledge that we have no knowledge - that's what i bring to the table. Note that when I said "There may be no origin" that that wasn't me ASSERTING that there was no origin. That was me, proving to you that there exist plausible alternatives to "God." And because of that, THE JURY IS STILL OUT. Until God is proven to exist beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt... well... there you have it. You're simply not being reasonable if you say you "know."

You believe a great many things that you've likely never observed for yourself. You've probably never observed an atom, yet you believe men who tell you it's there. The bacteria in your gut, likely also unobserved. Are you learned in the fields of quantum mechanics, so that you can say with total conviction that the Big Bang Theory is indeed plausible? Probably not, yet you'll trust men who say that they know it's plausible.

Yet someone comes along and says, "I know that there is a God," and you completely discredit him, even spitefully ridicule him as though what he is saying is more absurd or unbelievable than things without brains being the basis of all existence! It's truly amazing how without God, we are just totally lost.

Am I literally the only person who has ever disagreed with you? To my knowledge you're calling an awful lot of people "insane." And what in the world is necessary about God's existence? Since even you stated that God will never make himself proven, apparently doing all He can to make sure no one ever catches hide or hair of him, what makes the universe without God any different than a universe with God, even if He exists? Do you even know?

Again... prove it.

I didn't call you insane. But I will call you foolish. It's very foolish indeed of you to speak as you do, making demands of God. Consider that He is perfectly wise, perfectly good and righteous, and that He loves you very much.

What's important here isn't that someone prove His existence to you. What's important is that you see yourself for the sinner that you are, and that you recognize your need for a Savior. Your priorities are reversed, you see. Well, until you see that, you'll continue to shake your fists at the sky in futility. And that goes for all who are in your frame of mind.

Look to your left... matter. Look to your right... matter. Look at yourself... matter.
It doesn't matter if God exists or not if He is unwilling to make Himself known. He may as well not be there at all if He isn't going to "be there." Everything we see that is active in the universe is based on periods of refresh. Refresh of energies, refresh of forces, refresh of ideas. But God does nothing from generation to generation to refresh His existence with the fresh set of humans on Earth. And don't you just have to wonder whether that's simply because He is unwilling... or because He doesn't exist at all?

It is not difficult at all to ignore that which I do not believe exists. What's hard to ignore are blatant fabrications that are pushed as "the truth."

My heart is a muscle that pumps blood through my body. What are you saying here?

I see, you think I am "going through a phase." How about the rest of the world? I have seen figures/surveys/charts that non-religiosity is on the rise throughout sections of the world. Or is that a sign of the end times? I can never keep up with the current version of the story.

It's true, the rest of the world is in wickedness. Evil times are indeed upon us; they're already here, in fact. And yes, this is that age where God will reconcile all things back to Himself. Yes, it's going to be very, very ugly. Already is.

God is "here." He is totally involved in every aspect of your life. He is completely aware of your every thought, desire, of your plans and motivations, and of all of your sins. He has predestined you to do what He has determined, to be as He determines, and that you will become who He determines.

So what if you and everyone else are unaware of it? There is a good chance you were never meant to become aware. But eventually you'll understand, and you'll come to realize that it was all meant for a good purpose, even your ignorance.
 
"Emptied the vacuum of space."? Somebody spoonfed you most of this didn't they including the lines about the first law of thermodynamics (which doesn't apply in this context) and just sent you out in the world to repeat what they said... but you give yourself away by trying to improvize and stray from the manuscript... It's shameful how theists without a conscience take simple innocent sheep and send them out among the wolves unprepared.

I was repeating a theorized event from the video you posted, that's all. The particles blinking in and out of existence aren't actually blinking in and out of existence, otherwise they would be violating the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore those particles aren't being created, and certainly aren't an example of "something from nothing."
 
No, not at all. "I don't know" has never been an excuse for the existence of a god. You are shifting the burden of proof, a sign that you know that there is no evidence for your beliefs. But don't worry. It has been explained. Google search for "A universe from nothing".

Those claims are totally theoretical, and for you to say "it has been explained" is intellectually dishonest. I've heard it all before, and I'm not shifting the burden of proof, either. These things are plainly obvious to those given to see.

It doesn't scare me either. But your shame indicates that you took certain aspects of your Christian upbringing to seriously. A problem common to many theists.

My shame indicates that I was given to see myself for the wretch that I am, nothing more. If I'd taken my Christian upbringing too seriously, if I could even call it a Christian upbringing, then I probably would've gone to church more than once or twice a year. I was far more interested in my sinful, depraved existence than I was in doing the right thing.

If you "know" that God exists then you can prove it. Otherwise you merely have belief, just like believers in countless other religions that have made the same claim.

If you have reliable evidence let's hear it . That would be a first here.

Your stance is a cop-out. You demand something you can see, smell, touch, test, retest, examine, and prod until you're satisfied. And do you know why? Because men who are respected by the world for their supposed knowledge set the standards. They tell you what proof is, they tell you what to believe and what to discredit based on their standards. And you use that standard for yourself and say "My standard is gold."

I use logic that can't be discredited by any rational argument, but that doesn't matter to you because you have no interest in the truth. I don't know why that is; perhaps it's pride, perhaps it's rebellion, or perhaps it's just plain stupidity. Whatever the reason, it isn't good.

There is no reason to believe in a life after death in the first place. After that failure I lost interest.

If you have valid evidence for your beliefs you will find a receptive audience here. That is what I am waiting for.

ETA: And your paper pretty much negates itself from the onset by pretending that a mythical event actually happened.

I'm not pretending at all. I'm simply here to tell you the truth, your standards be damned.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
I was repeating a theorized event from the video you posted, that's all. The particles blinking in and out of existence aren't actually blinking in and out of existence, otherwise they would be violating the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore those particles aren't being created, and certainly aren't an example of "something from nothing."
See the video again, and again, and again, until you get the point. There's no energy getting created or destroyed. There's no energy getting created or destroyed. There's no energy getting created or destroyed. The positive energy of matter in the universe minus the negative energy in gravity = 0. Zero. Like 1-1=0. Nothing. What's the Total Energy In the Universe?
 
See the video again, and again, and again, until you get the point. There's no energy getting created or destroyed. There's no energy getting created or destroyed. There's no energy getting created or destroyed. The positive energy of matter in the universe minus the negative energy in gravity = 0. Zero. Like 1-1=0. Nothing. What's the Total Energy In the Universe?

I take your point, but redefining "nothing" as this video attempts to do makes that "nothing" "something." And I still don't buy the concept of particles blinking in and out of existence, which is used to claim that something is coming from nothing.

In the end, it's all a giant waste of time and a deliberate obfuscation of the unavoidable truth that people somehow believe the insane theory that nothing compacted into something huge, exploded, and from all of that chaos we have perfect laws, mathematics, and symmetry.

And even if I were to concede (and I'm not) that there is anything at all to this theory, it is still so theoretical that for anyone to cite it as anything even resembling a rational explanation would be foolish. And that's what many of you do here.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There has been proof given that God exists.

I think that what you mean is that arguments have been offered for the existence of God. They are only proof for those that are convinced by them. If you didn't convince any of your audience, you've proved nothing to anybody including yourself, since you already believed.

How many people do you suppose would be willing to die for a lie, knowing factual it's nothing more than a lie ?

It happens all of the time. How many American soldiers died in Vietnam and Iraq over a lie?

How many wars began with a false flag operation?

Consider the Branch Davidians under David Koresh at Waco in 1993. Those people believed him that he was God, or a messiah, or anointed of God, or whatever he taught them, and they died beside their children for that belief.

How about the Heaven's Gate people who committed suicide based on a lie from a Marshall Applewhite that they would hitch a ride onto a comet to some promised afterlife.

Dying for a belief isn't evidence that your belief is correct, only that people hold beliefs that they are willing to die for.

But as we know human nature tells us, that when your life hangs in the balance you will give up the lie. But yet many Christians died by Lions and Tigers and burned at the stake in the Roman Colosseum. All because they would not confess what they had was a lie. There's your proof, of the existence of God and Christ Jesus. But as it is, even you will still deny it no matter how much proof is given. All because for you to accept it, would be you accepting truth.

That was not convincing evidence for a god, therefore, it was not a proof.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am talking about God here, Who is supernatural and not subject to laws or limitations.

Even a god would have to be subjected to laws that transcend and preceded it. For example, what forces needed to exist to keep a god and all of its knowledge intact rather than dissipating or evaporating away as it were?

A god would need to be subject to whatever forces account for its consciousness. You can't very well claim that God created his own consciousness before He was conscious to do so, can you?

And a god would have to be subject to time if it is to be able to act or think, both of which require before and after states.

Even the concept of existing requires time. To exist means to be a real thing through a series of consecutive moments. For things that used to exist, that final moment has passed. For things yet to exist, that first moment hasn't come yet. For things that currently exist, this moment is one of those moments. And that must be true in any reality that you might say exists. To say that God has always existed is to say that there was never a moment when He didn't, but doesn't remove God from time.

If God intended we should have proof, then we would have it. We're not supposed to have proof, therefore you will never find it.

There is another, more likely explanation for why we cannot find evidence for gods. Vestigial Mote gave you a nice presentation wherein he changed the argument of the faith based thinker from gods to invisible gnomes. Didn't he invite you to join him in his journey with the gnomes. Sure, there's no proof (or evidence) for the existence of these gnomes, even if somebody is willing to die for them. If the gnomes intended you to have proof, you'd have it.

If you cannot disprove their existence, you should believe that they exist, right?

Did you find that compelling? Did you accept? If not, why not.

Whatever your answer, that's the answer to you. Substituting gods for gnomes doesn't make the argument any better.


That's more than theorizing (speculating). That's evidence that the method is dependable and that that scientific knowledge is useful if not accurate or true (I'm learning to avoid that word more and more - was Newton's theory of gravitation "true"? It works in most applications.).

And that method tells us that the earth formed by accretion from a nebula forming into a solar system, and that the original surface of the earth was rock, at times molten, at times hardened into crust, not soil.

You seem to believe that if something wasn't witnessed, nothing can be known about its history, and that all claims about that history are guesses no better than any other guess. If so, you are incorrect. I'll bet that you believe that you were conceived, gestated in your mother's womb, were born one fine day, and took your first breath, and you have no direct knowledge of any of it

What if I told you that you were just "theorizing" about that? You might tell me that your mother was a witness to all of that and told you about it, but is that really why you believe that all those things happened, or do you know how to use present evidence to come to sound conclusions about the past?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sorry, but how do YOU know that he didn't just start the Earth out with fertile soil? How can you have any idea at all how the Earth was created when all men can do is theorize?

Man can do more than speculate. He can observe, attempt to explain his observations, and use those explanations to make accurate predictions about what can and and cannot be found in nature if his explanation is correct, and if they are, to perhaps apply his ideas to improve the human condition.

And using the scientific method, man has achieved miracles.

We DO have a clue, because logic tells us absolutely, positively and even demonstrably that something cannot come from nothing, and that therefore the origin of matter and everything that comes with it had to come from a Creator. God necessarily exists. To say otherwise is, as I've said, insanity.

Non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the preceding argument.

The source of the universe, if it has one, could also be an unconscious entity like a multiverse budding uncounted universes of every possibility from itself, or within itself. If you've already ruled that out and ruled a conscious creator in, you've done so without justification.

The Big Bang Theory runs into the same problem that every other theory that doesn't include God in the equation does. You must explain the origin of matter. Failure to do so makes all of the rest of no consequence whatsoever.

I think we'll continue to use our existing scientific theories anyway whether the explanation for the source of the universe and the substance and forces in it is ever found or not.

And yes, I do have knowledge over you. Sure, I could recount any number of supernatural events that have happened to me as "proof," but you would still have to believe them.

Then they're not proof if others have to take your word to believe you, are they?

My knowledge comes from faith

What comes from faith based thinking is unjustified belief. I don't call that knowledge.

How can faith be a path to a correct belief if that belief and its polar opposite can each be believed by faith. We know that at least one is wrong.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
I take your point, but redefining "nothing" as this video attempts to do makes that "nothing" "something."
No it doesn't.
And I still don't buy the concept of particles blinking in and out of existence, which is used to claim that something is coming from nothing.
Then I'm afraid you are in serious denial of reality my friend. It's not just a concept. As the article says: "laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time." again "laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time."
In the end, it's all a giant waste of time and a deliberate obfuscation of the unavoidable truth that people somehow believe the insane theory that nothing compacted into something huge
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we call a straw man fallacy. First he claims that people somehow believe that "nothing compacted into something". But that is a lie. People don't believe that. That is a straw man. And then he calls this misrepresentation of what some people believe an insane theory. The question is, does he do it deliberately or does he simply not understand what he's saying? I go for the last.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No it doesn't.Then I'm afraid you are in serious denial of reality my friend. It's not just a concept. As the article says: "laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time." again "laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time."Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we call a straw man fallacy. First he claims that people somehow believe that "nothing compacted into something". But that is a lie. People don't believe that. That is a straw man. And then he calls this misrepresentation of what some people believe an insane theory. The question is, does he do it deliberately or does he simply not understand what he's saying? I go for the last.

I believe that the nonsensical arguments put forth
by creationists are simply ignorance. A vague impression,
multiplied by an attitude, some sarcasm
often enough, and some imagination and presto,
you have facts not in evidence.

A bit of dismissive contempt to anyone who does not
believe in t he Truth of their god as they see it tossed in.

I dont think they deliberate put out nonsense, they do
believe in their cause, that god, the bible and all of reality is on their side.

Why the utter lack of due diligence, I dont know.

It may be those with the means and inclination to inform themselves
end up not being creationists.

The alternative is to do faith thro' the absurd means of
total commitment to intellectual dishonesty.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Those claims are totally theoretical, and for you to say "it has been explained" is intellectually dishonest. I've heard it all before, and I'm not shifting the burden of proof, either. These things are plainly obvious to those given to see.

You do not even know what "theoretical" means in a scientific context. It means that the concept explains all observed evidence and has not been contradicted. Gravity is a theory, in case you did not know. And yes, you are trying to shift the burden of proof. If not why even bring it up? The only dishonesty is coming from you.

Your only valid excuse is that you do not understand the science, but that give you no right to dispute it. All you can say is that it is beyond your ken.

My shame indicates that I was given to see myself for the wretch that I am, nothing more. If I'd taken my Christian upbringing too seriously, if I could even call it a Christian upbringing, then I probably would've gone to church more than once or twice a year. I was far more interested in my sinful, depraved existence than I was in doing the right thing.

But why follow an immoral cult that does nothing to fix your wretched state? Learning how to think rationally can set you free. You will know when you did wrong and that you have to make things right when you do that. A religion that merely excuses your wrong deeds is the lazy man's way out.

Your stance is a cop-out. You demand something you can see, smell, touch, test, retest, examine, and prod until you're satisfied. And do you know why? Because men who are respected by the world for their supposed knowledge set the standards. They tell you what proof is, they tell you what to believe and what to discredit based on their standards. And you use that standard for yourself and say "My standard is gold."

Now please, try to be honest. You were the one that claimed that you knew. Now when someone demands that you have something more than mere belief you attack that person rather than supporting your claim. All that you have done is to demonstrate that I was correct. By the way, you are dependent upon my standards. You are dependent upon the scientific method. If I say that I know something I will show how I know it. You can't support your claims with anything other than circular logic.

I use logic that can't be discredited by any rational argument, but that doesn't matter to you because you have no interest in the truth. I don't know why that is; perhaps it's pride, perhaps it's rebellion, or perhaps it's just plain stupidity. Whatever the reason, it isn't good.

Nope, you use circular reasoning and that can be used to justify almost any belief. And please, I am the one that is interested in the truth. That is why I gave up on Christianity. It fails when one investigates it.

I'm not pretending at all. I'm simply here to tell you the truth, your standards be damned.

No, you are just fooling yourself and your inability to support your claims show that my standards are far superior to yours.

I am ready to help you learn if you want to. If you are merely here to preach you will not find a very receptive audience.
 
Top