Stop with the "who created God" argument it's bloody horrendous.

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    If the Universe was eternal, there was no Big Bang which I'm guessing you believe in.
    I will never for the life of me understand why people imply that atheists somehow 'believe' in scientific theory.
    You can't 'believe' in the Big Bang nor can you 'believe' in any other theory that contradicts creationism. Science isn't a belief system.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Actually, the article is simply a theory saying there were Big Bangs before the Big Bang - don't try and connect that to the 'a Big Bang is happening right now' - trying to change your beliefs mid-argument just makes you look funny as we are talking about one Big Bang so if there were Big Bangs before it still couldn't be eternal.

    Your condescension is quite funny but you know. If you wanna say he's a made-up story then sure.



    whoa - a round of applause for that strawman - it was magnificent but unfortunately not what I even said.

    South is an application of direction but something that is south of you isn't an application of direction. So just because the word eternal relates to time, doesn't mean the thing it is describing can't be outside of time. There is no outside of the outside of time because the outside of time is the Metacosm - how can there be an outside of an outside without you even acknowledging that that outside exists.



    Loving those peer-reviewed studies that didn't even go against me. Wow, someone says they made a huge amount of sense - they're obviously not biased. There's no point in hypocritical judgement in fact the Bible says it's wrong. Do not ask people to educate themselves in such a rude way. without you yourself being educated.



    Another strawman - do I need to reassure you I am not a crow?

    I never said, because you're wrong 'god did it, innit' - just because scientists have no empirical proof for abiogenesis (which evolution depends on) doesn't mean 'god did it, innit' but it means that people who cry for empirical proof of God are only deceiving themselves when there is 0 empirical proof for abiogenesis.

    I believe God is the eternal first cause and I proved you wrong by saying the Big Bang as an EVENT can't be eternal - that's not attributing it God. You've been holding this strawman up the whole argument and that's the real misguided belief.



    I doubt it because religion isn't even against science. I'm sure we would have gone further if people took Christianity for what it actually was.

    As you can say science has never and can't ever harm anyone - I can say a relationship with God doesn't harm anyone. People harm people.



    It's pretty funny how I used 'LOL' twice in my post and you used the smiley 10 times which if you didn't guess is 5 times as much as my usage but I guess you get triggered easily. You used the smiley after almost every sentence and it's funny how you just use the LOL in the same way in a hypocritical and worse way than mine own.

    As said before, hypocritical judgement is wrong and just plain embarrassing.

    I'm loving that clear empirical proof for the Cyclic Hypothesis - o wait there is none.

    How can you be so rude in a simple internet argument? I guess it just comes down to how triggered you are - but I shouldn't worry about your self-control - you don't believe in any real lasting consequences of your actions anyway (wait was that just a gross misrepresentation of your beliefs - yes it was - and it's exactly what you've been doing this whole argument with strawmans left, right and centre)

    I have no superstitions but if you actually knew what the Big Bang was, you'd know an event couldn't be eternal and that the Cyclic Hypothesis doesn't even say the Big Bang is Eternal :/

    rip don't force it and the Multiverse theory (which if you actually believe in - you are having as much faith as Christians in Christ) together to pretend as if you're right.
    False, evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. They are two independent theories. Even if it were proven that life were instigated by a magical troll evolution would continue to be true.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    If the Universe was eternal, there was no Big Bang which I'm guessing you believe in.
    Not so. There are hypotheses and logical constructions that one can come up with to describe an eternal universe that also undergoes Big Bangs, the cyclical model being but one example. Whether those ideas have evidence in their favour is a different matter.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Actually, the article is simply a theory saying there were Big Bangs before the Big Bang - don't try and connect that to the 'a Big Bang is happening right now' - trying to change your beliefs mid-argument just makes you look funny as we are talking about one Big Bang so if there were Big Bangs before it still couldn't be eternal.
    Actually, I never tried to link that into a big bang is happening now. I submitted that to highlight to you that if big bangs happened before the big bang, then how could there be an outside of time, since big bangs hypothetically happen continuously. I'm loving the fact that you couldn't discern that. A study of science would've given you critical thinking skills. Winning this debate against you is sooo easy.

    And no-one can state if the big bang is over or is still in the process of happening. I read a couple of articles about that a few years back which put forth that it is continuous, which i'll find and post up (oh no, more evidence).

    But it goes along the lines of this:

    Name:  pic.jpg
Views: 15
Size:  11.7 KB

    In this image, when has the explosion finished? At picture 2? Picture 10? Or at picture 20? We know there was a 'big bang' i.e sudden rapid expansion but we have no idea to what extent it will expand. We have no idea at what stage in the universe's expansion process we are in and so we don't know if the process of the big bang is over.


    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Your condescension is quite funny but you know. If you wanna say he's a made-up story then sure.
    At last, you show evidence of learning. It has only taken a couple of weeks. You understood that I was putting humour into my condescension (oh, by the way, that word means I talk down to you).

    There's an easy way to show that it's not a made up story...evidence. Or perhaps that evidence also exists outside of the outside of time. Alongside the big band.


    (Original post by StudyJosh)

    whoa - a round of applause for that strawman - it was magnificent but unfortunately not what I even said.

    South is an application of direction but something that is south of you isn't an application of direction. So just because the word eternal relates to time, doesn't mean the thing it is describing can't be outside of time. There is no outside of the outside of time because the outside of time is the Metacosm - how can there be an outside of an outside without you even acknowledging that that outside exists.
    You don't have to say something to insinuate it. Again, you should refrain from using words that you don't know their application for. Something that is eternal requires time to be applied to it (by its very nature if it's eternal) and there's no evidence that the concept of eternal / eternity can exist outside of time.

    If something is south of something, by the very fact it is south means it exists in a place where direction exists. If this god concept is eternal then it must exist in a place where time exists, thus this god concept can't exists outside of time if it's eternal.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Loving those peer-reviewed studies that didn't even go against me. Wow, someone says they made a huge amount of sense - they're obviously not biased. There's no point in hypocritical judgement in fact the Bible says it's wrong. Do not ask people to educate themselves in such a rude way. without you yourself being educated.
    Now here is the place to use the term 'strawman' (hopefully you won't take weeks to learn the appropriate usage like you did in regards to humour) argument. Those peer-reviewed studies absolutely go against what you say. I've asked multiple times for you to provide evidence for your stance and you've failed everytime. You'll likely continue to fail to provide evidence for your stance.

    I've not asked people to educate themselves. I've asked one person, you, to educate themselves (#triggered Do you need a safe space now. Perhaps you can use a safe space outside of time? There's no safer place to be). You are not people. You're a person. One person does not make people. And i've never been anything but polite and humorous (even by your admission). Oh, how our schools have failed you since you fail to even understand that.

    Perhaps you never went because there were no schools in your area. Maybe because the schools existed outside of time...hmmm.


    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Another strawman - do I need to reassure you I am not a crow?

    I never said, because you're wrong 'god did it, innit' - just because scientists have no empirical proof for abiogenesis (which evolution depends on) doesn't mean 'god did it, innit' but it means that people who cry for empirical proof of God are only deceiving themselves when there is 0 empirical proof for abiogenesis.

    I believe God is the eternal first cause and I proved you wrong by saying the Big Bang as an EVENT can't be eternal - that's not attributing it God. You've been holding this strawman up the whole argument and that's the real misguided belief.
    Again, using 'strawman' in a place where it doesn't apply. How about this, how about we put this debate on hold whilst you go and learn about the term 'strawman' (judging by the speed of your mental uptake, I say I have a few weeks before that term registers with you). And what on earth are you talking about i.e crow?

    Evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis. Those are two separate fields. Education would have helped inform you of that.

    But...but...but abiogenis exists outside of time which is why you can't find evidence, har de har.


    I've never said or insinuated that because you don't accept the big bang that must mean you believe that god is the cause. I've tackled your god claim, because you out and out stated that god was the eternal first cause. You should read over your posts to keep track of what you're saying.

    Again, you haven't proved me wrong. You simply made a counter-statement without evidence. Whilst you're spending weeks trying to learn the term 'strawman', you should take that time to understand the terms 'proof / prove'.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I doubt it because religion isn't even against science. I'm sure we would have gone further if people took Christianity for what it actually was.

    As you can say science has never and can't ever harm anyone - I can say a relationship with God doesn't harm anyone. People harm people.
    Religion typically does go against science. Your posts shows this to be the case. Although people harm people, most mainstream religions encourage people to harm other people. Science doesn't. A relationship with god is one of the most harmful forces the world has ever known.

    If people took christianity for what it is, then we would've had the dark ages, the persecution of scientists etc...oh wait, we did when christianity was more wide spread.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    It's pretty funny how I used 'LOL' twice in my post and you used the smiley 10 times which if you didn't guess is 5 times as much as my usage but I guess you get triggered easily. You used the smiley after almost every sentence and it's funny how you just use the LOL in the same way in a hypocritical and worse way than mine own.

    As said before, hypocritical judgement is wrong and just plain embarrassing.

    I'm loving that clear empirical proof for the Cyclic Hypothesis - o wait there is none.
    You know what's funnier, I only used the smiley face 10 times yet you felt it warranted a remark. #more triggered than John Wayne's handgun.

    There was nothing hypocritical about my LOL usage. I meant it...LOL.

    If it has affected you that much, perhaps you should find a safe space outside of time. But not a safe space outside of the outside of time. Because that would be ridiculous :rolleyes:
    At no point did I say that the cyclic hypothesis had proof. I even said that it was a hypothesis which may be an explanation why there is no such thing as before the big bang or outside of time.

    If you find hypocritical judgement embarrassing, then perhaps stop making hypocritical judgements. No need to be so easily embarrassed.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    How can you be so rude in a simple internet argument? I guess it just comes down to how triggered you are - but I shouldn't worry about your self-control - you don't believe in any real lasting consequences of your actions anyway (wait was that just a gross misrepresentation of your beliefs - yes it was - and it's exactly what you've been doing this whole argument with strawmans left, right and centre)

    I have no superstitions but if you actually knew what the Big Bang was, you'd know an event couldn't be eternal and that the Cyclic Hypothesis doesn't even say the Big Bang is Eternal :/

    rip don't force it and the Multiverse theory (which if you actually believe in - you are having as much faith as Christians in Christ) together to pretend as if you're right.
    I've not been rude at all and I don't think you have either. Perhaps working on your sensitivity would improve state of mind?

    You've not asked me about how i consider my actions in relation to consequences. How can you assume to misrepresent them if you don't know what my beliefs about consequences are? Oh yeah, that's because you're happy assume a position without evidence. All you had to do was ask but we can't have you using evidence to prove your position, can we?

    I've already given a counter-counter-statement as to how the big bang can be considered to be ongoing (i'll find the links soon). And the cyclic hypothesis is an counter argument to the outside of time concept as I explained above. This has as much weight as the god delusion.

    Multiverses aside, I don't put faith in anything. I base my position on evidence and facts, not faith. Try it and find enlightenment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    God is a "He" you feminist witch :fuhrer:
    Your God may be a Daddy God. Mine's a Mummy God. :yep:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    I will never for the life of me understand why people imply that atheists somehow 'believe' in scientific theory.
    You can't 'believe' in the Big Bang nor can you 'believe' in any other theory that contradicts creationism. Science isn't a belief system.
    True, but only up to a point. Once theories become very widely shared and completely accepted, they do become beliefs effectively. For example, it would be foolish not to 'believe' in gravity and most people would be happy to believe now that the Moon orbits the Earth due to gravity. It's not a religious belief, but it's still a kind of belief - it's an acceptance that generations of experts and generations of experiments and theorising are more likely to be right than any other explanation.

    Actually, religious ideas were like that for past generations. Repeatedly being told that it was OK for the church to steal 10% of your food or produce every year to provide for the Vatican and the Bishop was widely 'accepted' as a belief by the majority because for many centuries they accepted their 'expert' view that the Bible justified it, etc. The view gradually began to collapse when people heard other views or evidence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Think People)
    We are humans. Our knowledge is limited , yet we must use our senses that the creator has given us.
    There's no evidence for a creator, that's the point. Evolution has given us our senses.

    We humans cant even look at the sun for more than 5 seconds yet we demand evidence for a "God".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I've seen a lot of Muslims use this sun example and I find it very bizarre. Firstly, Muslims believe Allah has no physical form and is unlike anything in physical reality. And as light is definitely part of physical reality, being blindingly bright cannot be a property of Allah.

    Next, the light from the sun is dangerous because it's incredibly bright and our eyes haven't evolved to deal with it, nothing to do with divinity.

    Moreover, why choose the sun? There are countless number of things which we CAN look at with no problem and I assume you believe God also created those. So by this weird logic we should be able to see evidence for God as we can see evidence for many other things.

    Lastly, your statement is a non-sequitur. How does there not being evidence for God follow from the sun being bright?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    There's no evidence for a creator, that's the point. Evolution has given us our senses.



    I've seen a lot of Muslims use this sun example and I find it very bizarre. Firstly, Muslims believe Allah has no physical form and is unlike anything in physical reality. And as light is definitely part of physical reality, being blindingly bright cannot be a property of Allah.

    Next, the light from the sun is dangerous because it's incredibly bright and our eyes haven't evolved to deal with it, nothing to do with divinity.

    Moreover, why choose the sun? There are countless number of things which we CAN look at with no problem and I assume you believe God also created those. So by this weird logic we should be able to see evidence for God as we can see evidence for many other things.

    Lastly, your statement is a non-sequitur. How does there not being evidence for God follow from the sun being bright?
    And also, if this god was all powerful, why can't he assume a non-harmful form? By their own example looking at the sun for too long is harmful. So that must mean that god is a harmful influence? Better to be without him, me thinks. Thank god ( pun intended) that there are other rational thinkers on this thread.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Just baseless assumptions. An uncaused cause doesn't have to have the characteristics typically associated with God.

    Also, this doesn't answer the question. Unless you're a pantheist then it's likely you believe God's creation is not part of himself ergo it must have been made from nothing if God was all that existed before the universe.
    And what characteristics would an uncaused cause have?

    The Law of Cause and Effect isn't a baseless assumption? LOL

    God wasn't mad - that's what an uncaused cause means.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    I will never for the life of me understand why people imply that atheists somehow 'believe' in scientific theory.
    You can't 'believe' in the Big Bang nor can you 'believe' in any other theory that contradicts creationism. Science isn't a belief system.
    No-one said it was a belief system but you can believe in scientific theory - belief has multiple definitions and bigotry won't change time.

    If you don't understand that you can't believe in a theory then let me help you:

    believe

    bɪˈliːv/verbverb: believe; 3rd person present: believes; past tense: believed; past participle: believed; gerund or present participle: believing

    1) accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
    "the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"

    synonyms:be convinced by, trust, have confidence in, consider honest, consider truthful
    antonyms:disbelieve
    • accept the statement of (someone) as true."he didn't believe her"
    • have religious faith."there are those on the fringes of the Church who do not really believe"
    • feel sure that (someone) is capable of doing something."I wouldn't have believed it of Lavinia—what an extraordinary woman!"
    2) hold (something) as an opinion; think.
    "I believe we've already met"

    synonyms:think, be of the opinion that, think it likely that, have an idea that, imagine, feel, have a feeling, hold, maintain, suspect, suppose, assume, presume, conjecture, surmise,postulate that, theorize that, conclude, come to the conclusion that, deduce;
    antonyms:doubt
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    False, evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. They are two independent theories. Even if it were proven that life were instigated by a magical troll evolution would continue to be true.



    Not so. There are hypotheses and logical constructions that one can come up with to describe an eternal universe that also undergoes Big Bangs, the cyclical model being but one example. Whether those ideas have evidence in their favour is a different matter.
    Not false. I never said they weren't two independent theories. Macroevolution can't happen without abiogenesis just like the Big Bang couldn't happen without the creation of the universe.

    The universe would be eternal but the Big Bang wouldn't be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    And what characteristics would an uncaused cause have?

    The Law of Cause and Effect isn't a baseless assumption? LOL

    God wasn't mad - that's what an uncaused cause means.
    I didn't say cause and effect is an assumption. What's a baselsss assumption is saying that any eternal cause would be sentient, intelligent and magical. The cause of the universe couldn't have just been an unthinking natural process.

    And the topic was in the subject of nothing. Many theists try and ridicule atheists for believing something can come from nothing (and most atheists don't believe this anyway) whilst believing that their own god created everything from nothing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Not false. I never said they weren't two independent theories. Macroevolution can't happen without abiogenesis just like the Big Bang couldn't happen without the creation of the universe.

    The universe would be eternal but the Big Bang wouldn't be.
    It is false. You said evolution relies on abiogenesis, it does not. The former explains how animals adapt and the latter examines how life came to be. As I said, the origin of life does not in any way affect the validity of the theory of evolution.

    "The Big Bang couldn't happen without the creation of the universe"? The Big Bang was what created our universe in its current form, not a by-product of its creation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Actually, I never tried to link that into a big bang is happening now. I submitted that to highlight to you that if big bangs happened before the big bang, then how could there be an outside of time, since big bangs hypothetically happen continuously. I'm loving the fact that you couldn't discern that. A study of science would've given you critical thinking skills. Winning this debate against you is sooo easy.
    You've lost due to Danth's law - but ANYWAY. If Big Bangs happened before the Big Bang which that thing was trying to say - it is literally just saying there was time before the Big Bang.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    And no-one can state if the big bang is over or is still in the process of happening. I read a couple of articles about that a few years back which put forth that it is continuous, which i'll find and post up (oh no, more evidence).

    But it goes along the lines of this:

    Name:  pic.jpg
Views: 15
Size:  11.7 KB

    In this image, when has the explosion finished? At picture 2? Picture 10? Or at picture 20? We know there was a 'big bang' i.e sudden rapid expansion but we have no idea to what extent it will expand. We have no idea at what stage in the universe's expansion process we are in and so we don't know if the process of the big bang is over.
    The Big Bang is an event which means it would have already happened. The expansion is still happening but the Big Bang is over.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    At last, you show evidence of learning. It has only taken a couple of weeks. You understood that I was putting humour into my condescension (oh, by the way, that word means I talk down to you).

    There's an easy way to show that it's not a made up story...evidence. Or perhaps that evidence also exists outside of the outside of time. Alongside the big band.
    I understand later on you will claim you are not being rude despite the fact you admit to condescension. No-one brought up 'the outside of the outside of time' - an event can't be outside of time.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You don't have to say something to insinuate it. Again, you should refrain from using words that you don't know their application for. Something that is eternal requires time to be applied to it (by its very nature if it's eternal) and there's no evidence that the concept of eternal / eternity can exist outside of time.

    If something is south of something, by the very fact it is south means it exists in a place where direction exists. If this god concept is eternal then it must exist in a place where time exists, thus this god concept can't exists outside of time if it's eternal.
    But I'm disagreeing with you and saying it doesn't. I never said God is 'north' of time or he is 'infinite time' - I said he is outside of time - eternal. To use the word eternal for a different meaning doesn't mean God is in time. If I used a word saying 'in every direction' it would mean he is in a place where direction exists but to say 'in no direction' doesn't mean he's a place where direction exists - he's just out of a place where direction exists and the fact you can't comprehend shows you lack critical thinking skills not me.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Now here is the place to use the term 'strawman' (hopefully you won't take weeks to learn the appropriate usage like you did in regards to humour) argument. Those peer-reviewed studies absolutely go against what you say. I've asked multiple times for you to provide evidence for your stance and you've failed everytime. You'll likely continue to fail to provide evidence for your stance.
    Not really but okay. They don't go against what I said, and what exactly do you want me to provide evidence for.

    [QUOTE=!!mentor!!;67822748]
    I've not asked people to educate themselves. I've asked one person, you, to educate themselves (#triggered Do you need a safe space now. Perhaps you can use a safe space outside of time? There's no safer place to be). You are not people. You're a person. One person does not make people. And i've never been anything but polite and humorous (even by your admission). Oh, how our schools have failed you since you fail to even understand that.

    Perhaps you never went because there were no schools in your area. Maybe because the schools existed outside of time...hmmm.
    [/QUOTE=!!mentor!!;67822748]

    Condescension isn't polite but if you want to pretend it is, sure. If you want to say I got triggered over a forum, then you can believe what you want but weren't you making fun of me saying LOL two posts ago. Being a pedant just wastes time. Comparing schools to God isn't funny, it just makes no sense.


    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Again, using 'strawman' in a place where it doesn't apply. How about this, how about we put this debate on hold whilst you go and learn about the term 'strawman' (judging by the speed of your mental uptake, I say I have a few weeks before that term registers with you). And what on earth are you talking about i.e crow?

    Evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis. Those are two separate fields. Education would have helped inform you of that.

    But...but...but abiogenis exists outside of time which is why you can't find evidence, har de har.
    It simply seems that you're the one that slow if you don't know how crows relate to strawmen. I never said evolution and abiogenesis are the same field - Macroevolution needs abiogenesis to exist. You're the one that needs empirical evidence for everything but when you get cornered, you just say something about it existing outside of time which only leaves us wondering how evolution could have happened.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    I've never said or insinuated that because you don't accept the big bang that must mean you believe that god is the cause. I've tackled your god claim, because you out and out stated that god was the eternal first cause. You should read over your posts to keep track of what you're saying.

    Again, you haven't proved me wrong. You simply made a counter-statement without evidence. Whilst you're spending weeks trying to learn the term 'strawman', you should take that time to understand the terms 'proof / prove'.
    Read your own posts because you did. You started comparing me the 'Tides goes in, tide goes out, can't explain that' meme when I never implied that. You want evidence that the Big Bang isn't eternal? You actually want evidence that an event isn't eternal? LOL

    That other atheist disproved it - lemme just get a quote:


    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Without having read the full thread of comments, I would just like to point out that referring to the Big Bang as eternal, or using any other measure of time to describe the Big Bang, is inherently wrong. The Big Bang theory proposes that the Big Bang was the point at which time began; asking what came 'before' the Big Bang is like asking what's North of the North Pole - it's an inherently contradictory question. I'll quote Stephen Hawking (from The Grand Design) as he puts it far better than I ever could:

    1) “In the early universe—when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory—there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or our mathematics.”

    2) “The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Religion typically does go against science. Your posts shows this to be the case. Although people harm people, most mainstream religions encourage people to harm other people. Science doesn't. A relationship with god is one of the most harmful forces the world has ever known.

    If people took christianity for what it is, then we would've had the dark ages, the persecution of scientists etc...oh wait, we did when christianity was more wide spread.
    But it doesn't. Christianity doesn't encourage people to harm people. A relationship with God isn't harmful in anyway. Christianity is more widespread now than it was then and the Dark Ages was due to people

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You know what's funnier, I only used the smiley face 10 times yet you felt it warranted a remark. #more triggered than John Wayne's handgun.

    There was nothing hypocritical about my LOL usage. I meant it...LOL.
    Yeah, it was kind of worrying, but if I only used it 10 times and I'm triggered for making a remark, surely you're more triggered for making a remark about my LOL usage twice? rip

    Just because you mean something doesn't mean it's not hypocritical LOL.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    If it has affected you that much, perhaps you should find a safe space outside of time. But not a safe space outside of the outside of time. Because that would be ridiculous :rolleyes:
    At no point did I say that the cyclic hypothesis had proof. I even said that it was a hypothesis which may be an explanation why there is no such thing as before the big bang or outside of time.

    If you find hypocritical judgement embarrassing, then perhaps stop making hypocritical judgements. No need to be so easily embarrassed.
    Of course it would be, because there's no outside of outside. I can't get into the outside of time yet so meh.

    Bringing it up was a waste of time then.

    I haven't made any hypocritical judgements. I'm not embarrassed about anything but you should be.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    I've not been rude at all and I don't think you have either. Perhaps working on your sensitivity would improve state of mind?

    You've not asked me about how i consider my actions in relation to consequences. How can you assume to misrepresent them if you don't know what my beliefs about consequences are? Oh yeah, that's because you're happy assume a position without evidence. All you had to do was ask but we can't have you using evidence to prove your position, can we?

    I've already given a counter-counter-statement as to how the big bang can be considered to be ongoing (i'll find the links soon). And the cyclic hypothesis is an counter argument to the outside of time concept as I explained above. This has as much weight as the god delusion.

    Multiverses aside, I don't put faith in anything. I base my position on evidence and facts, not faith. Try it and find enlightenment.
    Just because I think you're being rude in general, doesn't mean I would personally take effect. It's just funny how you think condescension isn't rude in anyway.

    Just like when you tried to make the point the Big Bang was eternal. I'm allowed to make assumptions until they are proven wrong. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF AN ASSUMPTION LOL.

    assume: suppose to be the case, without proof.

    Whether you can consider the Big Bang to be on-going through that theory (even though you said it had 0 proof which you constantly need, right?) - it doesn't mean it's eternal so you still failed. Cyclic Hypothesis has nothing to do with the Metacosm so idk wut ur talking about.

    If you're all about facts and evidence, how can you accept macroevolution when you don't even know how it could have happened seeing as abiogenesis has no empirical evidence or proof.

    Your misconceptions of Christianity mean nothing to God's judgement so you can hold them as long as you want.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I didn't say cause and effect is an assumption. What's a baselsss assumption is saying that any eternal cause would be sentient, intelligent and magical. The cause of the universe couldn't have just been an unthinking natural process.

    And the topic was in the subject of nothing. Many theists try and ridicule atheists for believing something can come from nothing (and most atheists don't believe this anyway) whilst believing that their own god created everything from nothing.
    There's nothing magical about him - we can assume the uncaused cause had the abilities and powers to cause the other causes.

    They believe their God is something and so the nothing came from something which was God.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    It is false. You said evolution relies on abiogenesis, it does not. The former explains how animals adapt and the latter examines how life came to be. As I said, the origin of life does not in any way affect the validity of the theory of evolution.

    "The Big Bang couldn't happen without the creation of the universe"? The Big Bang was what created our universe in its current form, not a by-product of its creation.
    I quote from the RationalWiki:

    In spite of its name, the Big Bang theory says nothing about how the Universe first came into being. In other words, it says nothing about the Big Bang itself. All it says is "OK, we know the laws of physics at these energy scales, so we can extrapolate back to around 10-43 seconds, but beyond that we have no idea what happened; we'd need a quantum theory of gravity for that."

    and

    As Brian Greene put it, "A common misconception is that the Big Bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The Big Bang is a theory … that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the Big Bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the Big Bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all."[20] You could say that the Big Bang theory is to the origin of the universe what the theory of evolution is to abiogenesis.
    [emphasis mine]
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    There's nothing magical about him - we can assume the uncaused cause had the abilities and powers to cause the other causes.

    They believe their God is something and so the nothing came from something which was God.
    I don't know why you're denying that God is described by virtually all cultures as magical. Calling him omnipotent and whatever else is just posher ways of saying he has magical powers.

    No, that doesn't work because God didn't create everything from himself, did he? The main religions are very clear that God is completely separate from his creation.

    Only pantheists can say that God created everything from himself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I quote from the RationalWiki:

    In spite of its name, the Big Bang theory says nothing about how the Universe first came into being. In other words, it says nothing about the Big Bang itself. All it says is "OK, we know the laws of physics at these energy scales, so we can extrapolate back to around 10-43 seconds, but beyond that we have no idea what happened; we'd need a quantum theory of gravity for that."

    and

    As Brian Greene put it, "A common misconception is that the Big Bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The Big Bang is a theory … that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the Big Bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the Big Bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all."[20] You could say that the Big Bang theory is to the origin of the universe what the theory of evolution is to abiogenesis.
    [emphasis mine]
    I wasn't talking about time 0. I'm saying the Big Bang was the inflation of the universe and what caused it to be in its current form. Science not yet knowing what came "before" does not give any weight whatsoever to theists' arguments.

    Well not really, your logic is bizarre. Just because both evolution and abiogenesis deal with living things doesn't mean they depend on each other. Obviously evolution wouldn't occur without living things in the first place, but that's just stating the obvious and not really a very helpful point because both theories deal with completely different things. The Big Bang theory actually aims to describe and study the origin of the universe. The theory of evolution doesn't at all aim to deal with how life began.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Your God may be a Daddy God. Mine's a Mummy God. :yep:
    Huh. I always had you pegged as the Daddy god type. :hmmmm2:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    An inifinite regression is a logical impossibility as this would mean there would be an infinite number of events between any two events. This would mean you would never actually reach the next event. This would also mean that between any two events there would be an inifinite time frame.

    This is obviously not seen in reality. Let's take energy changing from kinetic to heat energy as an example. If an infinite regress was true this would take an I figure number of changes before kinetic energy turned into heat energy. This would take an infinite amount of time and therefore, the kinetic energy would never manifest itself into heat. Since in reality energy does change forms we can conclude there were a finite number of changes of energy and therefore there cannot be an inifinite regress.

    Regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument some people have posed. That is stupid as it would be made of spaghetti I assume. One of the laws of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created nor destroyed it can only change forms. Matter is a manifestation of energy. So this also applied to matter. Now consider we cannot have an infinite changes of firms as an infinite regress cannot exist as demonstrated earlier in my post both matter and energy must've been created.

    Whatever created matter and energy must pre exist matter and energy. Therefore, it by definition must be immaterial and infinitely powerful (created energy from nothing). It must also be inifinite as it created time (as if time was truly infinite the time within any two events would also be infinite, however there is a finite amount of time between yesterday and today for example and therefore time must be finite). It must be omnipresent as it also created space and is therefore not restricted by spacial boundaries (Big Bang theory suggests there was no space in the singularity). I think I should clarify energy beyond created means the Big Bang itself cannot be the ultimate first cause.

    Therefore, through pure logic an infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal creator of the universe exists. This creator must also be persona (so it can therefore make choices to affect the reality it's created and so therefore listen to prayers for example) Why?

    Because an infinite being cannot causer something finite unless it chose to do it at a particular point in time. If it was a necessity rather than a choice than its creation would also be infinite. But as we can see the universe is not infinite through the logical steps that I have pointed out as well as scientific evidence backing this (Big Bang theory).

    So we have infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the Universe. There must also only be one God because two beings can't have exactly the same characteristics and the same spacial composition. Since, we therefore can't actually differentiate the two identities then it must only be one identity that exists. For example if I said there is two cans of Heinz baked beans on my table in the exact same 3D coordinates and look exactly the same you would say that's impossible as there is nothing to differential the two baked beans so there must only be one can of baked beans.

    So in conclusion, we have one being that is infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the universe. That sure sounds a lot like the God mentioned in the Abrahamic religions.

    Remember all the characteristics of God can never be proven as life is a test and if all of Gods characteristics did end up being proven then that defeats the purpose of a test to an extent. We need some sort of faith. But remember this isn't a weakness everyone needs faith to some extent. Scientists need faith in the scientific method for example.

    But even if we look at pure logic the evidence clearly points to a God creating the universe than any other alternative. I apologise for my red for being so long but that are my thoughts on this topic. I hope I have opened some people's eyes a little bit. Even if one person reads all of this and changes their opinion on this then it was worth it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    True, but only up to a point. Once theories become very widely shared and completely accepted, they do become beliefs effectively. For example, it would be foolish not to 'believe' in gravity and most people would be happy to believe now that the Moon orbits the Earth due to gravity. It's not a religious belief, but it's still a kind of belief - it's an acceptance that generations of experts and generations of experiments and theorising are more likely to be right than any other explanation.

    Actually, religious ideas were like that for past generations. Repeatedly being told that it was OK for the church to steal 10% of your food or produce every year to provide for the Vatican and the Bishop was widely 'accepted' as a belief by the majority because for many centuries they accepted their 'expert' view that the Bible justified it, etc. The view gradually began to collapse when people heard other views or evidence.
    The difference is that anyone can learn about those theories and see the evidence for themselves.If they actually put in the time and effort to learn those hard subjects then they could see the evidence for themselves.It is out there.Its not the same kind of belief at all.Religous ideas have no evidence to back them up all we have is the bibles unreliable say so.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: November 11, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.