Simply put, we don't know, and that not an excuse to say god did it.
Using your logic then, saying "Where did God come from?" isn't an excuse to say God doesn't exist. Again, in all these debates it boils down to one thing: We don't know.
Using your logic then, saying "Where did God come from?"
Using my logic you would not be able to ask that question, I said we don't know how something(the universe) was created/began/ect, but we do know it exists and we have proof it exists,
isn't an excuse to say God doesn't exist. Again, in all these debates it boils down to one thing: We don't know.
Of course not, that would be like saying the universe does not exist just because we don't know how it began/was created/ect, but to ask how something came from you need to have proof it exists.
Well as an athiest I think everything about religion is a lie
So are you saying that not killing people is bad? That giving to the poor and needy isn't the right thing to do? That paying taxes is just dumb and shouldn't be done? Seriously, religion is more than just believing in God(s) and stuff. They also basically state universal moral code that everyone should follow, even if they don't believe in the metaphysical stuff.
And lol at your ever changing logic rafterman. We don't have proof that there really was a Big Crunch or Big Bang, or the existence of white holes. But they are very plausible, and God is plausible to if you believe in evolution. God could just be a hyper-evolved organism that survived the Big Crunch. Just cause we don't have proof (though personal testimonies count as proof in a court of law, and I'm sure people around the world have PLENTY of personal testimonies that you really can't say are lies) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, if by your logic, we can't ask the question "Where did God come from?" then what are you even doing in this thread? That's the opening statement for this thread... >.>
And lol at your ever changing logic rafterman. We don't have proof that there really was a Big Crunch or Big Bang, or the existence of white holes.
Which is why I never said the Big Bang, the Big Crunch or White Holes were fact, nice try but you wont be able to find any post of mine that says they are fact.
But they are very plausible, and God is plausible to if you believe in evolution. God could just be a hyper-evolved organism that survived the Big Crunch
I'm not the first one to say this, but there is no need to and one more layer of pointlessness to evolution by adding god as a step to it, or at least not until he can be connected to it with proof(not faith). And it is plausible that a hyper-evolved organism did survive, but nothing with gods power, and if god is some hyper-evolved organism it would make the bible would be even less credible.
Just cause we don't have proof (though personal testimonies count as proof in a court of law, and I'm sure people around the world have PLENTY of personal testimonies that you really can't say are lies) doesn't mean it
There are plenty of personal testimonies,yes, but while they are not all lies they are all false, the people just believe its all true, but that would mean all the other deities exist too because every deity has been backed up by personal testimonies, not just the Christian god. Also personal testimonies are considered the lowest form of evidence in a court of law.
Also, if by your logic, we can't ask the question "Where did God come from?" then what are you even doing in this thread? That's the opening statement for this thread... >.>
If you can believe god has always existed. Then you can't say it is wrong to believe the universe has always existed.
Although he can't claim to be any better than you for his faith, you can't either.
Meh, just proving a point that his views are flawed too, by using a similar question. :P
What if there never was a first? It creates a cyclical structure for time, with one point where there is no time in between universes that ccould be counted as the beginning of a new cycle. Also, you can't say God was around forever, because that sounds like the very first matter, doesn't it?
ALSO, it did technically always exist, because until the Big Bang happened all time was in the singularity. If there's no time, something can't exist for a period of time. If it was 'always' there, it makes sense because there would be NO TIME AND THEREFORE NO SUCH THING AS BEGINNING OR END.
Basically, that's an argument for both sides, as 'matter' and 'God' are easily replaced in this. :/
And about that time theory, between the Big Crunches and Big Bangs, there is mass, therefore it exists in a point of time, therefore there is time. And how can this cyclical representation of time suddenly straighten out to a linear representation?
I'm not the first one to say this, but there is no need to and one more layer of pointlessness to evolution by adding god as a step to it, or at least not until he can be connected to it with proof(not faith). And it is plausible that a hyper-evolved organism did survive, but nothing with gods power, and if god is some hyper-evolved organism it would make the bible would be even less credible.
Nowhere in the Bible or any other 'holy text' does it refute the idea that God could be hyper-evolved, just keeping the amount of credibility. And think about absolute perfect, AKA ability to do anything. Darwin said that humans would eventually be perfect, so what is being perfect then? I would say it's the ability to do anything and everything AKA creating universes, causing Big Bangs and Big Crunches to happen, etc.
There are plenty of personal testimonies,yes, but while they are not all lies they are all false, the people just believe its all true, but that would mean all the other deities exist too because every deity has been backed up by personal testimonies, not just the Christian god.
You have NO RIGHT to say a person's feelings/thoughts are false. If somebody feels that God has effect their soul/emotions, you can't disprove that. You can't look into their brain and sort out all the emotions. I believe some mod touched on this fact before, but I'm not sure. They are PERSONAL testimonies for a reason. And yes, however, there is the idea that all Gods are pretty much the same, just a different representation of people's views.
Also personal testimonies are considered the lowest form of evidence in a court of law.
Yes, but it's still evidence. Evidence is evidence.
Nowhere in the Bible or any other 'holy text' does it refute the idea that God could be hyper-evolved, just keeping the amount of credibility. And think about absolute perfect, AKA ability to do anything.
The bible implies god created everything(and that god created himself?), for there to be a Big Crunch there has to have already been something.
Darwin said that humans would eventually be perfect, so what is being perfect then? I would say it's the ability to do anything and everything AKA creating universes, causing Big Bangs and Big Crunches to happen, etc.
Perfect means no flaws that affect what your supposed to do, the perfect gun would be a gun that kills very efficiently, but it would not be able to make ice cream appear, humans are built to eat, sleep, have sex, survive, once we do all four perfectly we will be perfect.
You have NO RIGHT to say a person's feelings/thoughts are false.
I DO IN FACT HAVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION PEOPLES BELIEFS IF THEY CHOOSE TO SPREAD THEM AROUND, if they don't make sense or are impossible they are indeed false and I have all the right in the world to say so.
If somebody feels that God has effect their soul/emotions, you can't disprove that.
Its not my job to disprove an outrages claim, its their job to prove it, otherwise I could say the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and because he created all evidence refuting his existence to test everyones faith you would not be able to disprove it and it would be more likely to be true then god, because it deals with the opposing evidence.
The bible implies god created everything(and that god created himself?), for there to be a Big Crunch there has to have already been something.
Yes. Implies that he created everything. The bible isn't always to be taken literally. The only thing that it really says God created is the Earth. And even though you haven't addressed, I feel like bringing it up. God says he's been around forever, yes? Well you could just start counting at the Big Bang or w/e, as a never universe has been created and therefore, time should be reset.
Perfect means no flaws that affect what your supposed to do, the perfect gun would be a gun that kills very efficiently, but it would not be able to make ice cream appear, humans are built to eat, sleep, have sex, survive, once we do all four perfectly we will be perfect.
Surviving 'erfectly' would be immortal. And if there's a Big Bang, there's not exactly food right away, so God would need some way to create it, yes? And I'm sure if he has the ability to create nutrition for he can create other things aswell.
I DO IN FACT HAVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION PEOPLES BELIEFS IF THEY CHOOSE TO SPREAD THEM AROUND, if they don't make sense or are impossible they are indeed false and I have all the right in the world to say so.
NO, ACTUALLY YOU DON'T. Think of it like this analogy: You have the right to swing your fist, but you don't the right to swing it into somebodies face. And God is obviously does not 'make sense or is impossible or is false' because people have their testimonies, and I described a situation that is very plausible.
Its not my job to disprove an outrages claim, its their job to prove it, otherwise I could say the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and because he created all evidence refuting his existence to test everyones faith you would not be able to disprove it and it would be more likely to be true then god, because it deals with the opposing evidence.
If it's not your job to 'disprove outrageous claims' then why even harass people for believing in God or saying he doesn't exist? It's not your job to do that. So get back to your actual job instead.
Yes. Implies that he created everything. The bible isn't always to be taken literally.
Why mix fact and fiction? It just creates confusion, especially when all of it sounds equally factitious/fictitious.
Surviving 'erfectly' would be immortal.
Surviving perfectly would be without any threat of dieing early do to predators/disease.
NO, ACTUALLY YOU DON'T./quote] And why not?
[quote] Think of it like this analogy: You have the right to swing your fist, but you don't the right to swing it into somebodies face.
Thankfully, challenging someones faith is not punching someone in the face, if you don't like it when people don't automatically believe everything you say and decide not to take it as fact, don't say it.
And God is obviously does not 'make sense or is impossible or is false' because people have their testimonies,
You just agreed with me that god is impossible.
and I described a situation that is very plausible.
In that sense its plausible that every penguin on earth has the ability to make entire oceans and landmasses freeze which is the cause of the north and south pole.
If it's not your job to 'disprove outrageous claims' then why even harass people for believing in God or saying he doesn't exist? It's not your job to do that. So get back to your actual job instead.
Because they are trying to spread a belief with no backing what so ever and athiests get chastised for not believing in god.
Surviving perfectly would be without any threat of dieing early do to predators/disease.
AKA immortality or ultimate powers.
And why not?
You just agreed with me that god is impossible.
Nice way to take things completely out of context. And even if it is out of context, nowhere did I agree with you that God is impossible. It was a direct quote of sorts and I said "God is obviously not" keyword: NOT. Let me emphasize that again for you, cause you seemed to have skipped it: NOT. But there was a grammar fail on my part. Where did that 'does' come from? O.o
Thankfully, challenging someones faith is not punching someone in the face, if you don't like it when people don't automatically believe everything you say and decide not to take it as fact, don't say it.
But it's equally as offensive. Attacking somebodies beliefs is terribly rude, and persecuting for it is even worse. I assume you live in the US, ever hear of 'FREEDOM OF RELIGION'? Basically the fact that you can't ridicule people for their beliefs.
In that sense its plausible that every penguin on earth has the ability to make entire oceans and landmasses freeze which is the cause of the north and south pole.
Yes. If you believe in evolution it is very plausible.
Because they are trying to spread a belief with no backing what so ever and athiests get chastised for not believing in god.
They have proof of their own testimonies and how it changed their lives, etc. Also, have you even taken a look at these forums?!? It's basically just the atheists saying that God doesn't exist and harassing all the theists. The atheist-theist ration is in HIGH favor of atheism. That or not all of the theists that browse these forums post, making them completely irrelevant, as they're not chastising you or anybody else.
Big, complicated world ug ug! Could not have happened randomly! Must have been created!
Yes, but science came one sentence before that. Religion was used to explain what we formerly could not explain with science. Any religious scientist will tell you that.
and either way, we used science before that when we looked for flaws in rocks when creating primitive weapons.
es, but science came one sentence before that. Religion was used to explain what we formerly could not explain with science. Any religious scientist will tell you that.
Could modernly be described as an oxymoron.
and either way, we used science before that when we looked for flaws in rocks when creating primitive weapons.
