• 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!

What is the difference between your God and mine?

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
This one goes to the Atheist who 'believes' they dont believe in any creator.
I love reading scientific publications, (and hopefully understand most of its content) and somehow learned that the Atheist likes to say they are sure there is no such a thing as a God.
Some will say, due to the abscence of evidence, they can conclude that there is no such a thing. Others simply just say, there is not, period.

The Christian, on the other hand 'believes' in a supernatural Creator. Note I say BELIEVES.

For some reason or another, the Atheist just hates such a prospect, and from experience I found that the Atheist just hates the thought of the existance of a Creator God!
To themit is sacred scientific blasphemy, and anyone saying there is a God, must be set on their place to display to the world that not only are such believers wrong, but totally in disregard of science, and somehow not so intelligent.

And, again out of experience, I find that the atheist wont hesitate to turn vulgar towards the Christian believer, forcing institutions, organisations, and even law to silent such people of this belief.

Why they are so arrogant against the Christian believer is beyond my understanding, but again, when I was an Atheist, I also thought it wize to verbally attack anyone who spoke about God in my presence.

However, Now that I learned that there is God, I find the Atheist is actually not so sincere about their facts and beliefs.

It is the old story of who was first, the egg or....
Lets look at what the facts show:

Is this one of those "the atheist secretly believes in a god" things?
This is so tiring...

The Christian God
  • The Atheist normally claims that there is no scientific method to determine the existance of a Creator, such as the Christians' God.

Wrong. Instead: The atheist observes that the christian fails to provide any evidence for this god, as well as fails to define said god in any independently objectively verifiable manner.

It's not upto the atheist to come up with ways to support / prove the christian god. It's the christian's burden of proof. The atheist just observes that they aren't capable of meeting that burden.

So, not a "fact". Instead some kind of attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

  • This Christian God exists outside the realm of Time and Space, is everlasting, and does not have an end. (exactly what it means to exist outside of Time)
  • This God does not exist in space, He is not bound by an outline, area, or physical entity. (exactly what it means to exist outside of Space)
  • This Creator was the cause of everything we know exists today, from the smallest of particle, to the grandest of Universes
  • Before all this, only God was
These aren't "facts". These are christian apologetics / beliefs.


The Scientific God (which the Atheist adores)

  • Before the Big Bang, only the laws of physics existed, and with the forces of natural gravity, somehow a vacuum bubble appeared, and through this uneven gravitational fields, more bubbles grew to exponentional sizes.
  • Particles, much smaller that what we can immagine, even smaller than the Higgs Bousson particles, popped up in more vacuumes in this false vacuum, and matter came into being.
  • This matter then, with the help of gravitational fields, increased so spectacularly, that it formed the centrepoint of the universe as we know it, and exploaded into what we know as the universe today.
This is the consenses of scientists such as Lindae, Hawkins, etc.

That was not only a pathetic attempt, it also completely confuses scientists with atheists.
Science is not atheism. Atheism is not science.

You're all over the place.

OK, now the angle.
The scientist believes that the whole of creation came into being due to "gravitational forces and the laws of physics.
If the Laws of Physics and Gravity kick started the universe, where did this gravitational fields bound by the laws of physics came from?

Whatever was "before" the universe (quotes, because what would that mean in a world without time?), according to your own argument, has no beginning and no end and is thus eternal and, again according to your argument, that requires no further explanation. That settles it.

So, these fields and laws didn't need to come from anywhere. They just were.

You may start your special pleading argument now.

(note that I'm just humoring your silly argument now - don't confuse this for me agreeing that you accurately described my view / beliefs, because you certainly haven't)

The scientist claim, it was there before anything existed, in a state external from space and Time, IOW, it always existed before there was space and time.

Why does it mean that this gravitational field was bound by the laws of physics?
Because without any intellectual regulations, and natural laws, this gravitational fields would not be able to kick start this Big Bang that contains laws and rules to abide by.

Therefore, even the atheist believes the whole creation was Created by a Creator, that existed forever, has intellect, and are not contained within the known space of the universe.

No. The atheist doesn't make that silly jump to personhood.
How funny how you tried to sneak that last part in at the end: "...was Created by a Creator, that existed forever, has intellect..."

You're even being intellectually dishonest when running with a strawman.
Priceless.

Now, what is the difference between your god, and the Christian God?

I don't believe in a god. Or gods.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Funny that our observation is as such.
Perhaps you are one of the people that dont mind a street preacher sperading the gospel, or you are not against Christian groups who wants to bring the Bible back into schools?

Wait a second.....................

So you want to have the privilege of being able to freely preach and spread your beliefs and actively try to get them taught in schools...
And at the same time you want others not to have that exact same right?

If this is the case, why so silent against the atheists that tells Christians on this forum that their beliefs are nothing more than fairytales.

The right of atheists to say that is the other side of the coin that gives you your right to preach that they aren't fairytales.

Or did you stop them from making a mockery of their God and their Bible?

Why wouldn't I make a mockery of whatever I wish to?
 

Yazata

Active Member
This one goes to the Atheist who 'believes' they dont believe in any creator.

I'm an agnostic, most emphatically not an atheist. But it's true that I don't believe in any personalized creator God.

The scientist believes that the whole of creation came into being due to "gravitational forces and the laws of physics.

Yes, there's a recent genre of popular science writing that tries to spin the physical space-time-matter universe out of the "laws of physics", quantum field theory in particular. A prominent example is Krauss' A Universe from Nothing. Unfortunately this seems to not only be unfalsifiable, not only does it seem to define the laws of physics as "nothing", it also hypostasizes those 'laws of physics' as timeless subsistents with some kind of metaphysically curious reality completely independent from the observable space-time-matter universe that they are being called upon to explain.

In my opinion it's a kind of conceit peculiar to theoretical physicists, for whom the equations that they scrawl on their chalkboards are seen as being more real than reality itself.

And yes, atheists have hailed these speculations. Krauss is one of the so-called "new atheists" and Dawkins praised the book effusively, comparing it to Darwin in the damage that Dawkins hopes it will do to the cosmological arguments.

If the Laws of Physics and Gravity kick started the universe, where did this gravitational fields bound by the laws of physics came from?

Isn't time a variable in almost all of these physical theories? So how does something like Schroedinger's equation work in the absence of time?

And even more fundamentally, where did the "laws of physics" come from? What explains their reality and why they are what they are and not something else?

Therefore, even the atheist believes the whole creation was Created by a Creator, that existed forever, has intellect, and are not contained within the known space of the universe.

Now, what is the difference between your god, and the Christian God?

I don't think that all atheists think this way, but it's increasingly popular. Trying to explain reality itself by appealing to the "laws of physics" does leave open the question of where the "laws of physics" come from and what explains them. Some of the 'something from nothing' theorists like Vilenkin acknowledge that deeper question. Some like Krauss seemingly don't (and get angry if anyone brings it up).

So getting back to how I personally think about it, I see the existence of existence itself as a cosmic mystery. Probably the biggest cosmic mystery that there is. I don't have a clue what the answer is, whether there even is an answer, or what a correct answer might look like. (How would it avoid circularity?) Hence my agnosticism.

But that's a long way from an 'Abrahamic' style God. Recognizing the underlying mystery doesn't commit me to personalizing whatever the answer might be, ascribing psychologistic qualities to it, associating it with morality in any way, believing that it has somehow communicated with mankind through revelations, or even that the hypothetical answer is holy, divine or a suitable object for religious devotion.
 
Last edited:

Hermit Philosopher

Selflessly here for you
No idea where you got all this from. Looks like some sort of muddled misunderstanding of multiple different hypotheses - all totally irrelevant to the existence or otherwise of any god(s).



No idea, you made it up.



Massive, unsupported assertion (even if your weird mishmash of science terms made sense).



What preceded this was way too confused for there to be a 'therefore'.



Which atheist is this? This atheist believes no such thing.

Cosmology really is irrelevant to the existence or otherwise of any god(s). Nobody needs to believe some alternative scientific 'origin story' to dismiss any god claim that comes with no supporting evidence or reasoning.


I’m not an atheist, but… you almost literally said everything I was thinking as I was reading this OP.

Humbly
Hermit
 

lukethethird

unknown member
... Derived from observation and interaction. In fact, EVERYTHING you can name is a "human construct" derived from observation and interaction. How could it be otherwise?
Everything we see and hear is not a human construct. Things like purpose and meaning are human constructs.
 

infrabenji

Active Member
This one goes to the Atheist who 'believes' they dont believe in any creator.
I love reading scientific publications, (and hopefully understand most of its content) and somehow learned that the Atheist likes to say they are sure there is no such a thing as a God.
Some will say, due to the abscence of evidence, they can conclude that there is no such a thing. Others simply just say, there is not, period.

The Christian, on the other hand 'believes' in a supernatural Creator. Note I say BELIEVES.

For some reason or another, the Atheist just hates such a prospect, and from experience I found that the Atheist just hates the thought of the existance of a Creator God!
To themit is sacred scientific blasphemy, and anyone saying there is a God, must be set on their place to display to the world that not only are such believers wrong, but totally in disregard of science, and somehow not so intelligent.

And, again out of experience, I find that the atheist wont hesitate to turn vulgar towards the Christian believer, forcing institutions, organisations, and even law to silent such people of this belief.

Why they are so arrogant against the Christian believer is beyond my understanding, but again, when I was an Atheist, I also thought it wize to verbally attack anyone who spoke about God in my presence.

However, Now that I learned that there is God, I find the Atheist is actually not so sincere about their facts and beliefs.

It is the old story of who was first, the egg or....
Lets look at what the facts show:
The Christian God
  • The Atheist normally claims that there is no scientific method to determine the existance of a Creator, such as the Christians' God.
  • This Christian God exists outside the realm of Time and Space, is everlasting, and does not have an end. (exactly what it means to exist outside of Time)
  • This God does not exist in space, He is not bound by an outline, area, or physical entity. (exactly what it means to exist outside of Space)
  • This Creator was the cause of everything we know exists today, from the smallest of particle, to the grandest of Universes.
  • Before all this, only God was.
The Scientific God (which the Atheist adores)

  • Before the Big Bang, only the laws of physics existed, and with the forces of natural gravity, somehow a vacuum bubble appeared, and through this uneven gravitational fields, more bubbles grew to exponentional sizes.
  • Particles, much smaller that what we can immagine, even smaller than the Higgs Bousson particles, popped up in more vacuumes in this false vacuum, and matter came into being.
  • This matter then, with the help of gravitational fields, increased so spectacularly, that it formed the centrepoint of the universe as we know it, and exploaded into what we know as the universe today.
This is the consenses of scientists such as Lindae, Hawkins, etc.

OK, now the angle.
The scientist believes that the whole of creation came into being due to "gravitational forces and the laws of physics.
If the Laws of Physics and Gravity kick started the universe, where did this gravitational fields bound by the laws of physics came from?

The scientist claim, it was there before anything existed, in a state external from space and Time, IOW, it always existed before there was space and time.

Why does it mean that this gravitational field was bound by the laws of physics?
Because without any intellectual regulations, and natural laws, this gravitational fields would not be able to kick start this Big Bang that contains laws and rules to abide by.

Therefore, even the atheist believes the whole creation was Created by a Creator, that existed forever, has intellect, and are not contained within the known space of the universe.

Now, what is the difference between your god, and the Christian God?
What’s the difference? One doesn’t exist and the other one is in your imagination. My 6 year old likes to make up stories too. We usually tell them at bedtime though not post them on a forum. Defective induction is why you make sweeping generalizations. Your dissension is intentionally dishonest and self asserting. Your rambling and disjointed responses are indicative of the fact that you have not taken the time necessary to understand or defend your own positions. Your thread is intentionally inflammatory and unnecessarily offensive. This stereotypical behavior calls your principles into question and closes the door to robust intellectually honest discourse. Proverbs 6:12 says “A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech”. Maybe give your own beliefs some consideration before you give false account of another’s.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Everything we see and hear is not a human construct. Things like purpose and meaning are human constructs.
"Existence", itself, is a human construct. So everything we deem to "exist" is "existing" relative to and within that intellectual, conceptual construct. What you think of as "reality" is actually just an an elaborate imaginary construct in your mind. If you can't grasp this, I don't know what else I can say.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
"Existence", itself, is a human construct. So everything we deem to "exist" is "existing" relative to and within that intellectual, conceptual construct. What you think of as "reality" is actually just an an elaborate imaginary construct in your mind. If you can't grasp this, I don't know what else I can say.
Human constructs are ideas that don't exist out there such as purpose or meaning which explains why looking for the purpose or meaning of the universe is a waste of time.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
A basic human advice in thinking. Whatever caused change did so destructively.

My conscious self says hence no creator.

My conscious mind says cooling allowed any change to hold forms.

I don't think I am lying.

I don't seek change.

Now science looks at everything changed.

How are you correct?

Self idealism by self presence stating identity by self first.

Men adults penis man body creates with females by sex a baby. The creator a human and self human.

Realisation self identity first.

Invention not creation is to own any status to change creation first

Taught destroyer mentality.

We taught ourselves human advice.

Pretty basic and not too difficult or coercive. No need to argue.

Truth is basic.

If men said earth was God in human science there is no argument. It is what you said brother man.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If you want to read human construct into everything, sure, whatever floats your boat.
Being human, it's pretty hard for us to avoid. You want to talk as if there is existence apart from human cognition. And there probably is. But the problem is that we only have access to whatever exists, though human cognition. So for us, there is no existence apart from human cognition. There is only the cognitive theory that there is existence beyond human cognition.

So when you try and use this theory of "objective reality" as if it were a fact beyond question (because it exists beyond human cognition), you are elevating an unfounded bias to an absolute truth. And doing that is never gonna end well.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Being human, it's pretty hard for us to avoid. You want to talk as if there is existence apart from human cognition. And there probably is. But the problem is that we only have access to whatever exists, though human cognition. So for us, there is no existence apart from human cognition. There is only the cognitive theory that there is existence beyond human cognition.

So when you try and use this theory of "objective reality" as if it were a fact beyond question (because it exists beyond human cognition), you are elevating an unfounded bias to an absolute truth. And doing that is never gonna end well.
I have no idea what you are on about.
 
Top