You are Here: Home

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

1. This is some of the most flawed logic I've seen in quite a while.

(Original post by Hamzah17)
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.
Mathematics has proven that some infinities are bigger than others. If you think about it, there are an infinite number of combinations after the decimal point between any two integers. 1, 1.0000000000001, 1.00000000000001 ad infinitum to get to 2, yet we can still get from one number to the next without spending an eternity doing so.

Secondly, most atheists don't consider an infinite regress logical either so you're arguing against something that very few people claim.

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.
You're mixing up your concepts here. How is the number of ways particles can rearrange themselves an infinite regress? The latter goes back in time, studying the transfer of heat goes forward in time and as previously demonstrated, we go through infinities all the time, every time we count for example.

I also chuckled at your phrase "this is obviously not seen in reality" because that's exactly what I'd say about God!

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.
You are contradicting yourself. You say matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and then go on to say matter and energy must have been created

In any case, that's false. You don't seem to be thinking outside the box much because there is another option: that matter and energy have always existed, in some form or other. This would certainly agree with the Laws of Thermodynamics that you're repeatedly bringing up.

Whatever created matter and energy must pre exist matter and energy.
There's no evidence anything created matter and energy. In fact, your own Laws of Thermodynamics say their creation is impossible.

Therefore, it by definition must be immaterial and infinitely powerful (created energy from nothing).
False premises from the get-go. First, there is no evidence for the creation of matter and energy and second, it violates basic logic to say something can come out of a literal nothing. That is impossible.

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).
Perhaps take greater care with the words you choose. I presume you're trying to say God would be eternal, which means something very different to infinite. I don't even know what it would mean to call a person or being infinite. Also, as I previously demonstrated, there are an infinite number of numbers between any two integers and that obviously applies to seconds, minutes, hours, yet we still move through them without wasting an eternity. Maths proves you wrong on this front I'm afraid.

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.
Again, you don't appear to know the definitions of the words you're using. Omnipresent does not mean one isn't bound by spatial boundaries, it simply means something is present in all space. Most of your next sentence is unintelligible.

Therefore, through pure logic an infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal creator of the universe exists.
Your logic has demonstrated no such thing. It is a jumble of unsupported assumptions and shoddy mathematics.

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?
And here we have it, another assumption for which there is not an iota of evidence. What caused the Big Bang may have been an unthinking law of nature/reality with no ability to reason and make decisions.

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).
This is a confused mess. As far as we know, time began with the Big Bang so it doesn't even make sense to say a being chose to create the universe at a particular point in time because when making that decision time itself wouldn't even have existed.

Moreover, the Big Bang doesn't actually prove the universe isn't eternal. There are many hypotheses out there which outline how an eternal, changing universe could still produce Big Bangs, the cyclic model perhaps being the most well-known.

So we have infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the Universe.
You have shown none of those things through logic, merely made unsupported claims.

There must also only be one God because two beings can't have exactly the same characteristics and the same spacial composition.
Nonsensical statement to make. We see in the world all around us plenty of things which have identical characteristics and compositions, the chemical elements to name the most obvious example. Therefore there is no logical argument against multiple gods.

Since, we therefore can't actually differentiate the two identities then it must only be one identity that exists.
Where are you getting this garbage from? I could place two identical pieces of anything in front of you and your inability to tell them apart would not mean only one existed. Seriously, I can't believe I'm having to explain this kind of thing to an adult presumably. Even a 5-year-old would understand this.

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.
What is this about coordinates? They inherently rely on space, yet you've been saying this whole time that God exists outside of space and implying it doesn't need space to exist, therefore multiple gods could exist by this exact line of reasoning.

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.
Again, you have shown no such thing. Also, I'm pretty sure none of the Abrahamic gods are regarded as being omnipresent. In Islam for example it is believed that Allah is not anywhere in physical reality, he is merely observing it from a different dimension/plane of existence. Ergo if he is not in physical reality then he is not omnipresent. I'm pretty sure the same theology applies to Christianity and Judaism.

It is only pantheists and panentheists who can say God is omnipresent while actually meaning it.

Remember all the characteristics of God can never be proven as life is a test
Life absolutely cannot be a test if God is all-knowing. You only test someone if there is an element of doubt involved. You cannot test someone if you 100% know what they're going to do because you cannot be surprised in any way. This is basic logic.

and if all of Gods characteristics did end up being proven then that defeats the purpose of a test to an extent.
This is just a cop-out so theists don't have to provide evidence for their claims: "Guys, God is real yeah, but there isn't any evidence for him because that would defeat the test!" I have to hand it to whoever made that up, they clearly weren't stupid having their cake and eating it too. What do you think of this statement:

"Guys, an invisible pink rabbit that is more powerful than Allah exists yeah, but there isn't any evidence for it because that would defeat the purpose of making Allah look like God"

?

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.
We don't need faith in the way you mean and it is extremely disingenuous to try and conflate religious faith with scientific "faith". Science is all based on empirical evidence and observation. The belief in God is not based on any empirical evidence and observation, you yourself have admitted there is no evidence for God because it would render the test defunct.

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.
Logic points to no such thing and yours certainly hasn't by any stretch of the imagination. You haven't opened my eyes up no, but you have made me bang my head against my desk. Several times.
2. (Original post by Robby2312)
Scientists do not rely on faith.They depend on evidence.It is proven that the earth is spherical.It is proven that gravity causes apples to fall to the ground.It is proven that the planets orbit the sun.Of course if you want to be philosphical then you could say that we depend upon our senses to tell us about the world.But there are certain things you just have to accept as true if reality is to have any meaning.For example you have to accept that you exist.If you dont exist then its useless speculating about reality so you should accept that otherwise the whole endeavour is useless.

Its a very different kind of faith to religous people.Religous people completely ignore what their senses tell them and say that its true because the holy book says so.Scientists listen to their senses and use them to find out about the world.Its a completely different sort of faith.And you need to look up the meaning of a scientific theory,it is not just a guess.The word for that is hypothesis.
You clearly didn't interpret my post properly. Did I say that a scientist faith is the same type of faith that religious people use. No of course not. All I stated was that scientists do have faith to an extent which is 100% true. Again as you said there are some things you have to accept are true otherwise everything we discuss regarding the reality of anything is useless. Again as mentioned before that therefore means we require faith that these things we true. I'm not by any mans saying it's wrong to believe that to be true. What I am saying is that scientists do require faith.*

Also regarding the scientific theory here's a definition "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."*

Found this on google which looks really familiar to what you said almost word for word at some points. I think you should maybe understand that you read. I did not claim scientific theories to be "guesses" at any point of the post I sent. I merely claimed that scientists still need faith to believe in many scientific theories. Yes, whilst it's proven the earth is round it isn't proven the Big Bang is 100% true. Yes the evidence heavily supports it but that doesn't make it a fact. There still needs to be an element of faith.*

Regarding religious people not using their senses. I think that's very naive on your part. Of course we use our senses. Many religions encourage to study science to understand the reality that God has created. Religious people have their faith in God which is why we have the utmost trust in holy books.

However, many of us don't just have blind faith in God, as mentioned in my earlier posts we believe in God as the evidence seems to point towards a God existing rather than a God not existing when we apply the laws of what we know about reality and then use logic. This is demonstrated in my earlier posts. In this sense I don't believe there is any difference in the faith a scientist has compared to a religious person. We both have faith in something due to the evidence supporting it. Once you believe in a creator and its qualities then you become much more open to holy books and they're validity. But that is a whole new discussion. When talking about Gods existence using logic and scientific laws when we think deeply it becomes evident that a God existing is much more likley than a God not existing. Check my first post on this thread to see the details.*
3. (Original post by Hamzah17)
Again atheists being silly again. The eternal creator of the Universe (or multiverse) must be immaterial as pointed out in my earlier post. So it cannot have a gender or cannot be a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
What are you on about? That was a joke aimed at the user I quoted, whom I know from other threads. I didn't read or quote any of your previous posts, so why you think it was a reply to something you've said is beyond me.

So stop trying to mock God.
Perhaps you should stop looking for mockery where none exists?

It just looks immature and unintellectual.
While I'm here, I may as well point out that the superficial appearance of an argument has nothing to do with its validity. The point of an argument is not to look 'mature' or 'intellectual', though it's not hard to see why creationists would think that it is, lacking as they usually are in substance.
4. (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
This is some of the most flawed logic I've seen in quite a while.

Mathematics has proven that some infinities are bigger than others. If you think about it, there are an infinite number of combinations after the decimal point between any two integers. 1, 1.0000000000001, 1.00000000000001 ad infinitum to get to 2, yet we can still get from one number to the next without spending an eternity doing so.

Secondly, most atheists don't consider an infinite regress logical either so you're arguing against something that very few people claim.

You're mixing up your concepts here. How is the number of ways particles can rearrange themselves an infinite regress? The latter goes back in time, studying the transfer of heat goes forward in time and as previously demonstrated, we go through infinities all the time, every time we count for example.

I also chuckled at your phrase "this is obviously not seen in reality" because that's exactly what I'd say about God!

You are contradicting yourself. You say matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and then go on to say matter and energy must have been created

In any case, that's false. You don't seem to be thinking outside the box much because there is another option: that matter and energy have always existed, in some form or other. This would certainly agree with the Laws of Thermodynamics that you're repeatedly bringing up.

There's no evidence anything created matter and energy. In fact, your own Laws of Thermodynamics say their creation is impossible.

False premises from the get-go. First, there is no evidence for the creation of matter and energy and second, it violates basic logic to say something can come out of a literal nothing. That is impossible.

Perhaps take greater care with the words you choose. I presume you're trying to say God would be eternal, which means something very different to infinite. I don't even know what it would mean to call a person or being infinite. Also, as I previously demonstrated, there are an infinite number of numbers between any two integers and that obviously applies to seconds, minutes, hours, yet we still move through them without wasting an eternity. Maths proves you wrong on this front I'm afraid.

Again, you don't appear to know the definitions of the words you're using. Omnipresent does not mean one isn't bound by spatial boundaries, it simply means something occupies all space. Most of your next sentence is unintelligible.

Your logic has demonstrated no such thing. It is a jumble of unsupported assumptions and shoddy mathematics.

And here we have it, another assumption for which there is not an iota of evidence. What caused the Big Bang may have been an unthinking law of nature/reality with no ability to reason and make decisions.

This is a confused mess. As far as we know, time began with the Big Bang so it doesn't even make sense to say a being chose to create the universe at a particular point in time because when making that decision time itself wouldn't even have existed.

Moreover, the Big Bang doesn't actually prove the universe isn't eternal. There are many hypotheses out there which outline how an eternal, changing universe could still produce Big Bangs, the cyclic model perhaps being the most well-known.

You have shown none of those things through logic, merely made unsupported claims.

Nonsensical statement to make. We see in the world all around us plenty of things which have identical characteristics and compositions, the chemical elements to name the most obvious example. Therefore there is no logical argument against multiple gods.

Where are you getting this garbage from? I could place two identical pieces of anything in front of you and your inability to tell them apart would not mean only one existed. Seriously, I can't believe I'm having to explain this kind of thing to an adult presumably. Even a 5-year-old would understand this.

What is this about coordinates? They inherently rely on space, yet you've been saying this whole time that God exists outside of space and implying it doesn't need space to exist, therefore multiple gods could exist by this exact line of reasoning.

Again, you have shown no such thing. Also, I'm pretty sure none of the Abrahamic gods are regarded as being omnipresent. In Islam for example it is believed that Allah is not anywhere in physical reality, he is merely observing it from a different dimension/plane of existence. Ergo if he is not in physical reality then he is not omnipresent. I'm pretty sure the same theology applies to Christianity and Judaism.

It is only pantheists and panentheists who can say God is omnipresent while actually meaning it.

Life absolutely cannot be a test if God is all-knowing. You only test someone if there is an element of doubt involved. You cannot test someone if you 100% know what they're going to do because you cannot be surprised in any way. This is basic logic.

This is just a cop-out so theists don't have to provide evidence for their claims: "Guys, God is real yeah, but there isn't any evidence for him because that would defeat the test!" I have to hand it to whoever made that up, they clearly weren't stupid having their cake and eating it too. What do you think of this statement:

"Guys, an invisible pink rabbit that is more powerful than Allah exists yeah, but there isn't any evidence for it because that would defeat the purpose of making Allah look like God"

?

We don't need faith in the way you mean and it is extremely disingenuous to try and conflate religious faith with scientific "faith". Science is all based on empirical evidence and observation. The belief in God is not based on any empirical evidence and observation, you yourself have admitted there is no evidence for God because it would render the test defunct.

Logic points to no such thing and yours certainly hasn't by any stretch of the imagination. You haven't opened my eyes up no, but you have made me bang my head against my desk. Several times.
Wow I can't believe how ignorant you are.

Firstly, regarding the infinities point I was taking about the context of an infinite regression not about infinities in a mathematical sense. I already know some infinities are bigger than others in a mathematical sense. If you see my original post you'll realise an atheist had actually argued that an inifinite regress was logical so I think you may not realise that some atheists are extremely stupid just like many religious people.

Now regarding two beings being identical and you not being able to tell them apart. This is only true if they occupy the exact same space. Obviously if they're identical but are placed in different areas you would be able to identify them as separate identities. If there are two infinitely powerful, omnipresent, personal creators of reality, you realise they hold the same characteristics but also take up the sand space so there's no way to tell them apart as to different beings. What makes them different to each other? Nothing, as even their spacial composition is the same (ie everywhere) Therefore, you can't identify them as two different beings. *

Also just a side note Abrahamic religions such as Islam and Christianity do believe the spirit of God to be present everywhere.

I think regarding the test part you should really watch inspiring philosophy's videos he truly breaks down your argument. It's too long to respond here lol.*

Science is based on empirical evidence efuvh is true. But the scientific method does require faith that we observe reality in the way it truly is. So some faith of some sort is required. Also whilst many scientific theories have evidence supporting them they are not proven therefore scientists do have faith that they are true. Yes it is due to the evidence supporting it but it's no different *to theists believing in God due to the evidence supporting it.*

Thank you for bringing up the second law of thermodynamics and the creation of energy and matter. You are one ignorant cookie. You say you don't believe in an infinite regress but admit that energy and matter change forms but always existed as the law states. Have you realised in order for them to change forms and be infinitely old that would require an inifinite regress of changes?

Now that's what I call a contradiction. You clearly haven't thought deep enough which is why you don't get my points.*

My point is that if you are to go back and say the heat energy was once kinetic energy which was once another type of energy and so on you realise if energy is truly infinite there must be an infinite regress of changes of forms in energy. This can't be the case as an infinite regress cannot exist in reality as it would require an infinite number of changes between any two changes and therefore the energy would never really change forms? Sounds confusing and full of contradictions right? Yes exactly and that's why energy cannot be infinite in its nature.

so since energy began to exist if just be been created by something infinitely powerful as it created energy from nothing. Don't get this wrong there wasn't absolutely nothing and the energy appeared remember there's a being that exists (God) which creates this energy. I've outlined why God is logically possible in that first post. I suggest you read and think deeply before you reply and make me smack my head against the table. *

Now this breaks a law of therodynamics. This just means that what've get created that energy particular is not necessarily restricted by this law as it is supernatural in its nature. You can't find the creator using the laws of its creation. For example if I created a computer game. The characters cannot use the laws of the game to detect my nature. Even though Im not detective in that dimension it doesn't mean I don't exist.

Again your invisible pink rabbit response makes no sense as a rabbit is made up of matter and has a finite size. It cannot be invisible and pink by definition just shows your stupid logic. So yes I would argue that I can argue against a indivisible pink rabbit hypothesis by showing its impossible for all these qualities to logically exist. Unfortunately, you can't do the same because if you actually read and think deeply about my arguments you'll realise the logic does follow to the conclusion of an infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the universe (or multiverse). I suggest you read my first post again before making stupid replies. I with I could meet you in real life and call you out on your BS
5. (Original post by Hydeman)
What are you on about? That was a joke aimed at the user I quoted, whom I know from other threads. I didn't read or quote any of your previous posts, so why you think it was a reply to something you've said is beyond me.

Perhaps you should stop looking for mockery where none exists?

While I'm here, I may as well point out that the superficial appearance of an argument has nothing to do with its validity. The point of an argument is not to look 'mature' or 'intellectual', though it's not hard to see why creationists would think that it is, lacking as they usually are in substance.
Whilst it may be a joke at least make it logical. A Flying Spaghetti Monster creating all of reality is extremely stupid which is clearly seen in the original response to you. Anyways regarding the substance in my argument I don't get what you are getting at as I haven't said anything illogical whilst you have. So if anyone is lacking substance it's you. *
6. (Original post by Hamzah17)
Whilst it may be a joke at least make it logical. A Flying Spaghetti Monster creating all of reality is extremely stupid which is clearly seen in the original response to you.
I think you're misunderstanding. Nowhere have I made either the highlighted statement, or indeed any statement about who or what created the universe. You're going to have to stop attributing this Flying Spaghetti Monster comment to me - it's a clear-as-day straw man.
7. (Original post by StudyJosh)
You've lost due to Godwin'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.
Oh dear, oh dear. Yet again using more terms you don't understand. You really need to stop that. Perhaps you should understand what Godwin's law references.

HE GETS IT. PRAISE BE TO BUDDHA. If there has always been time then there can't be a possibility to exist outside of it.

(Original post by StudyJosh)
The Big Bang is an event which means it would have already happened. The expansion is still happening but the Big Bang is over.

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.
Events have a defined start point and end point. If the end point is the same as the start point then the event has not occurred. If the end point occurs after the start point then it has a duration. No-one knows the duration of the big bang so the possibility exists that it still continues.

I wasn't being rude. By being condescending i helped you learn something (as detailed above). You're welcome.

You're right. I brought up the outside of the outside of time to highlight the stupidity of your claim ('outside of time'. An event can't be outside of time (condescension worked). And now you can see how god can't be outside of time.

(Original post by StudyJosh)
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.
I'm not saying you related god to direction or infinite time. I used those examples as a direct comparison to your claims to highlight how they don't make sense. If you have to change words to fit your motives then your claims are weaker than ever before. Just use words as they are meant to be if you hope to have any hope of gaining any credibility.

That fact that you can't comprehend that you don't comprehend that you lack the knowledge that you're without critical thinking skills isn't surprising. It tends to be a trait of the religious.

(Original post by StudyJosh)
Not really but okay. They don't go against what I said, and what exactly do you want me to provide evidence for.
Yes really, so okay. They completely go against what you said. You should provide supporting evidence that anything can exist outside of time.

(Original post by StudyJosh)
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.
But what if I want believe that you being triggered exists outside of time.

Being a pedant is time well spent. Well, unless you're the sort of person who likes to redefine words to suit your own meaning then I can see why details would be an inconvenience.

Comparing god to anything is always funny. I quite like the comparison to the 'mafia boss' myself.

(Original post by StudyJosh)
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.
Ah, so you redefined strawman to mean scarecrow. Yeah, you shouldn't redefine words in a desperate attempt to fake...I mean, make an argument. Even a god object wouldn't understand you when you do that. Is English your first language?

You didn't say abiogenesis and evolution are the same field, you said that evolution is dependent on abiogenesis, which it's not as they don't even remotely attempt to explain the same thing... because they are different fields. You're the only one on this thread who doesn't understand that.

Only religious people wonder how evolution could have happened, whilst everyone else understand the theory.

I haven't remotely been cornered in this thread. I have replied with evidence, sarcasm and condescension whilst your responses have generally been along the lines of " Outside of time makes sense. But outside of outside of time makes no sense...grrrrr".

(Original post by StudyJosh)
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

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
No, i didn't. i used the 'tides' as an example. Bill O'Reillt doesn't understand how the tides go in and out so he attributed it to god. You don't understand the big bang / beginning of the universe so you attribute it to god.

Christianity absolutely encourages people to harm people. Not only does it allow slavery but it allows you to beat them without punishment. It tells you to kill people for working on the sabbath, to kill homosexuals for having sex, to kill misbehaving children, for rapists to marry their victims. there's just so much evil in th e bible. having critical thinking skills would've allowed you to understand this.
It is one of the most evil books ever written.

And there are various stories of people saying "god told me to kill my kids" or "god told me to murder those doctors". Christianity is evil (but that's a discussion for another thread) .

(Original post by StudyJosh)
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

Of course it would be, because there's no outside of outside. I can't get into the outside of time yet so meh.
You do worry a lot (that tends to be a trait of religious people failing to understand various concepts). Perhaps you should go into your safe space. You know, the one outside of time. It's as safe as can be. Oh, burn.

You're right, like god you can't get to the outside of time because there's no evidence that it exists.

(Original post by StudyJosh)
I haven't made any hypocritical judgements. I'm not embarrassed about anything but you should be.
I, along with other people on this thread can see that you're not embarrassed. Typically less educated people (putting it politely. See i can be polite) would wouldn't understand that they should feel embarrassed, and that's because they are less educated.

(Original post by StudyJosh)
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.
Okay, okay, calm down.

Condescension isn't rude. As detailed above it had a positive effect on you, in that you began to learn something.

(Original post by StudyJosh)
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.
Okay, no need to shout. My my, you're angry. You're very much allowed to assume, but that's not what you've been saying. You've been stating that god is the first cause rather than you assume it to be the first cause. Big difference.

(Original post by StudyJosh)
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.
The on-going big bang is not a theory. I even said it was postulated as a hypothesis. The fact you'd use the word 'theory' in such a context is a fail so big it can only exist outside of time. You really need to understand what words mean before you use them or were you redefining that as well? You need to learn the difference between theory and hypothesis.

Again, linking abiogenesis and evolution is a false dichotomy. They aren't related so why you would continually try to link them shows you don't understand them.

I have no misconceptions about christianity. It is evil and it is great that less and less people by the day identify as being christian. Praise the lord.
8. (Original post by Hamzah17)
Wow I can't believe how ignorant you are.
Nothing I said was ignorant.

Firstly, regarding the infinities point I was taking about the context of an infinite regression not about infinities in a mathematical sense. I already know some infinities are bigger than others in a mathematical sense. If you see my original post you'll realise an atheist had actually argued that an inifinite regress was logical so I think you may not realise that some atheists are extremely stupid just like many religious people.
I already commented on your infinite regress point and how it isn't an argument many atheists make. The point about infinities in a mathematical sense refers to your other comments about not being able to traverse infinities when we very clearly can. We do so every day.

Now regarding two beings being identical and you not being able to tell them apart. This is only true if they occupy the exact same space. Obviously if they're identical but are placed in different areas you would be able to identify them as separate identities. If there are two infinitely powerful, omnipresent, personal creators of reality, you realise they hold the same characteristics but also take up the sand space so there's no way to tell them apart as to different beings. What makes them different to each other? Nothing, as even their spacial composition is the same (ie everywhere) Therefore, you can't identify them as two different beings. *
Initially you said nothing about space, merely that two identical things would mean that only one of them is real, which is clearly nonsense.

But two gods would not take up the same space because you yourself have been saying that God existed before space, therefore by your own line of reasoning gods don't need space to exist! So you haven't at all refuted the possibility of multiple gods.

Also just a side note Abrahamic religions such as Islam and Christianity do believe the spirit of God to be present everywhere.
I don't believe that is true. Muslims constantly go on about Allah being totally separate from and unlike his creation.

I think regarding the test part you should really watch inspiring philosophy's videos he truly breaks down your argument. It's too long to respond here lol.*
Every argument you've put forward has been debunked right here and right now. Saying "oh someone else has refuted you" is lazy and hot air. Present the cogent logic for your arguments because it's clearly lacking.

Science is based on empirical evidence efuvh is true. But the scientific method does require faith that we observe reality in the way it truly is. So some faith of some sort is required. Also whilst many scientific theories have evidence supporting them they are not proven therefore scientists do have faith that they are true. Yes it is due to the evidence supporting it but it's no different *to theists believing in God due to the evidence supporting it.*
As Robby explained to you, that stance is ridiculous and not really faith. You have to accept some things as reality to even be able to make basic thought processes, it is nothing at all like faith when discussed in a religious context.

No, they don't have faith that they are true. 100% proofs only exist in mathematics, but scientific theories are as close as is empirically possible to proofs so for all intents and purposes they are proof. Anything else is just semantics.

Thank you for bringing up the second law of thermodynamics and the creation of energy and matter. You are one ignorant cookie. You say you don't believe in an infinite regress but admit that energy and matter change forms but always existed as the law states. Have you realised in order for them to change forms and be infinitely old that would require an inifinite regress of changes?
Excuse me? I think you'll find the ignorant one is yourself as the second law does not state matter and energy can be created. I have already shown how you refuted and contradicted yourself. Thermodynamics shows matter and energy cannot be created and you have not provided any evidence of matter and energy being created.

It wouldn't require an infinite regress of changes because there's no reason it couldn't have been in a stable or constant state for most of eternity. You're not making much sense now. You can't use the laws of thermodynamics to back up your argument when it suits you and discard them when it doesn't. And something being eternal does not automatically invoke the problem of infinite regress because you believe God is eternal and presumably you don't see infinite regress as a barrier to that belief.

Now that's what I call a contradiction. You clearly haven't thought deep enough which is why you don't get my points.*

My point is that if you are to go back and say the heat energy was once kinetic energy which was once another type of energy and so on you realise if energy is truly infinite there must be an infinite regress of changes of forms in energy. This can't be the case as an infinite regress cannot exist in reality as it would require an infinite number of changes between any two changes and therefore the energy would never really change forms? Sounds confusing and full of contradictions right? Yes exactly and that's why energy cannot be infinite in its nature.
Not so because as I just said, there is the ability to remain constant for extended periods of time. Also, heat and kinetics are characteristics of matter, not energy. And as matter is believed to have been created at the Big Bang, before then there may have been only quantum fluctuations to which heat and kinetics don't really apply.

so since energy began to exist
Hold up, who said energy began to exist? No such thing has been proven and thermodynamics disagrees. To quote you, "energy cannot be created or destroyed".

if just be been created by something infinitely powerful as it created energy from nothing. Don't get this wrong there wasn't absolutely nothing and the energy appeared remember there's a being that exists (God) which creates this energy. I've outlined why God is logically possible in that first post. I suggest you read and think deeply before you reply and make me smack my head against the table. *
Nonsense. You cannot create something from a literal nothing, that is a logical impossibility. You have not provided any logic for God's existence, all you've down is tortured the logic and made a load of baseless assumptions.

Now this breaks a law of therodynamics. This just means that what've get created that energy particular is not necessarily restricted by this law as it is supernatural in its nature. You can't find the creator using the laws of its creation. For example if I created a computer game. The characters cannot use the laws of the game to detect my nature. Even though Im not detective in that dimension it doesn't mean I don't exist.
There is no evidence the laws of thermodynamics have been broken like so. Energy simply cannot be created. Science says so and nothing you've provided shows it can be.

But it doesn't mean you do exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim to provide evidence, not on the sceptic to refute it.

Again your invisible pink rabbit response makes no sense as a rabbit is made up of matter and has a finite size. It cannot be invisible and pink by definition just shows your stupid logic. So yes I would argue that I can argue against a indivisible pink rabbit hypothesis by showing its impossible for all these qualities to logically exist. Unfortunately, you can't do the same because if you actually read and think deeply about my arguments you'll realise the logic does follow to the conclusion of an infinitely powerful, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the universe (or multiverse). I suggest you read my first post again before making stupid replies. I with I could meet you in real life and call you out on your BS
It makes perfect sense because I can just define the rabbit as not being made from matter. After all, that's what theists have been doing for thousands of years when they made up their ideas of God, just defining it in ways that make it impossible for anyone to disprove. They had to do this because they knew there was no evidence for their existence and you haven't provided any either.

No, your logic doesn't follow at all, it is some of the worst reasoning I've seen on this site and that's truly saying something.

But fine, if you don't like the rabbit example I'll use another one which you won't be able to dismiss on the grounds of the being being composed of matter:

"Guys, there is a god who is more powerful than Allah, but there is no evidence for him because that would defeat the purpose of making Allah seem like God".
9. (Original post by Hamzah17)
You clearly didn't interpret my post properly. Did I say that a scientist faith is the same type of faith that religious people use. No of course not. All I stated was that scientists do have faith to an extent which is 100% true. Again as you said there are some things you have to accept are true otherwise everything we discuss regarding the reality of anything is useless. Again as mentioned before that therefore means we require faith that these things we true. I'm not by any mans saying it's wrong to believe that to be true. What I am saying is that scientists do require faith.*

Also regarding the scientific theory here's a definition "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."*

Found this on google which looks really familiar to what you said almost word for word at some points. I think you should maybe understand that you read. I did not claim scientific theories to be "guesses" at any point of the post I sent. I merely claimed that scientists still need faith to believe in many scientific theories. Yes, whilst it's proven the earth is round it isn't proven the Big Bang is 100% true. Yes the evidence heavily supports it but that doesn't make it a fact. There still needs to be an element of faith.*

Regarding religious people not using their senses. I think that's very naive on your part. Of course we use our senses. Many religions encourage to study science to understand the reality that God has created. Religious people have their faith in God which is why we have the utmost trust in holy books.

However, many of us don't just have blind faith in God, as mentioned in my earlier posts we believe in God as the evidence seems to point towards a God existing rather than a God not existing when we apply the laws of what we know about reality and then use logic. This is demonstrated in my earlier posts. In this sense I don't believe there is any difference in the faith a scientist has compared to a religious person. We both have faith in something due to the evidence supporting it. Once you believe in a creator and its qualities then you become much more open to holy books and they're validity. But that is a whole new discussion. When talking about Gods existence using logic and scientific laws when we think deeply it becomes evident that a God existing is much more likley than a God not existing. Check my first post on this thread to see the details.*
You say looking at reality helps you understand the creator.Maybe that is so.Possibly it lends support for a diestic god.But that god is very different to the kind of god talked about in the bible.The god in the bible exhibits jealousy,rage,anger and love as well at times.These are all human attributes.I ts a very personal view of god and thats the kind of god most people mean when they talk about god.Most people dont view god as just some abstract theological concept.They take the view that god constantly intervenes in human affairs.And I think to believe in such a god does require blind faith in whatever the holy books tells you is true about god.I have more respect for the diestic impersonal view of god but I still think it is unnecessary and doesnt really solve the problem of origins.
10. (Original post by Robby2312)
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.
I think you missed the point. We know that now about the Bible because we are mostly brought up with convincing evidence from multiple sources that it isn't plausibly the divine uncorrupted word of God and a perfect guide to all situations. (Although large numbers of fundamentalists, particularly in the US, still think this - and tie themselves in ludicrous knots trying to reconcile the vagueness and internal contradictions of their holy text and the evidence of modern science that they flatly deny but whose products they accept in other contexts, such as planes that fly or their smartphones.) In past, more ignorant periods, people believed that the evidence they were given did prove God, the Bible, etc, The evidence was all bogus - recitations of miracles from the Bible, fake healing, domineering priests, spectacular churches, etc - but to the common people, it was convincing evidence. Therefore their belief, to them, was evidence-based. All beliefs are actually. Even the supposed faith-based ones invariably come back to reasoning and evidence, it's just distorted reasoning based on false evidence.
11. (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
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.
A god can create something out of nothing but nothing can't create it self out of nothing.
12. (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
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.
The Big Bang isn't even about cosmic origins. Again, I quote:

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.
13. (Original post by !!mentor!!)
Oh dear, oh dear. Yet again using more terms you don't understand. You really need to stop that. Perhaps you should understand what Danth's law references.

HE GETS IT. PRAISE BE TO BUDDHA. If there has always been time then there can't be a possibility to exist outside of it.
There can still be an outside time even if time if infinite *facepalm*

I used Danth's law correctly but okay.

Being outside of time doesn't mean before time - it means outside of a place where time exists.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
Events have a defined start point and end point. If the end point is the same as the start point then the event has not occurred. If the end point occurs after the start point then it has a duration. No-one knows the duration of the big bang so the possibility exists that it still continues.
You see the Big Bang as an ongoing event that is happening now when most people see it as the inflation. The universe is still expanding obviously but whether you see the Big Bang as ongoing, it still wouldn't be eternal.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
I wasn't being rude. By being condescending i helped you learn something (as detailed above). You're welcome.

You're right. I brought up the outside of the outside of time to highlight the stupidity of your claim ('outside of time'. An event can't be outside of time (condescension worked). And now you can see how god can't be outside of time.
No, you didn't at all which I detailed above. Your condescension didn't accomplish anything but making you look more triggered than was seen in your first post.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
I'm not saying you related god to direction or infinite time. I used those examples as a direct comparison to your claims to highlight how they don't make sense. If you have to change words to fit your motives then your claims are weaker than ever before. Just use words as they are meant to be if you hope to have any hope of gaining any credibility.

That fact that you can't comprehend that you don't comprehend that you lack the knowledge that you're without critical thinking skills isn't surprising. It tends to be a trait of the religious.
I'm not saying you said I related - I'm just using them as comparisons too.

If you didn't know, you can type in 'define eternity' in Google and you will get multiple definitions.

One of these is:
a state to which time has no application; timelessness."the encounter between time and eternity.

I do have critical thinking skills but if you want to say I don't, then good for you.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
Yes really, so okay. They completely go against what you said. You should provide supporting evidence that anything can exist outside of time.

But what if I want believe that you being triggered exists outside of time.

Being a pedant is time well spent. Well, unless you're the sort of person who likes to redefine words to suit your own meaning then I can see why details would be an inconvenience.

Comparing god to anything is always funny. I quite like the comparison to the 'mafia boss' myself.
They don't go against what I said, but okay. I've already explained above that infinite time still doesn't mean God can't exist outside of time.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
Ah, so you redefined strawman to mean scarecrow. Yeah, you shouldn't redefine words in a desperate attempt to fake...I mean, make an argument. Even a god object wouldn't understand you when you do that. Is English your first language?

You didn't say abiogenesis and evolution are the same field, you said that evolution is dependent on abiogenesis, which it's not as they don't even remotely attempt to explain the same thing... because they are different fields. You're the only one on this thread who doesn't understand that.

Only religious people wonder how evolution could have happened, whilst everyone else understand the theory.
I didn't redefine anything - it's just funny because scarecrow and strawman are similar words and you can make a scarecrow out of straw or hay.

If life never came into existence, then evolution couldn't have happened so it is pretty dependent, like how the Big Bang is dependent on the universe starting.

Yes, it's pretty obvious but I'm learning from your book and being a pedant.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
I haven't remotely been cornered in this thread. I have replied with evidence, sarcasm and condescension whilst your responses have generally been along the lines of " Outside of time makes sense. But outside of outside of time makes no sense...grrrrr".

No, i didn't. i used the 'tides' as an example. Bill O'Reillt doesn't understand how the tides go in and out so he attributed it to god. You don't understand the big bang / beginning of the universe so you attribute it to god.
You got cornered on your first reply when you suggested the Big Bang could be eternal which is obviously not true - even another atheist went against that. I said the outside of time makes sense BECAUSE that is literally one of the definitions of eternal.

You can't suggest there is an outside of an outside of something if you don't know what the first outside is.

No, you don't understand how the Big Bang works when you tried to suggest that is it is how the universe started and how it could be eternal.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
Christianity absolutely encourages people to harm people. Not only does it allow slavery but it allows you to beat them without punishment. It tells you to kill people for working on the sabbath, to kill homosexuals for having sex, to kill misbehaving children, for rapists to marry their victims. there's just so much evil in th e bible. having critical thinking skills would've allowed you to understand this.
It is one of the most evil books ever written.

And there are various stories of people saying "god told me to kill my kids" or "god told me to murder those doctors". Christianity is evil (but that's a discussion for another thread) .
That's not Christianity, that's the Mosaic Law God gave to the Jews. There's nothing evil about the Bible

Just because someone said God told them to kill their kids doesn't mean God did it. I don't see the point in bringing that up.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
You do worry a lot (that tends to be a trait of religious people failing to understand various concepts). Perhaps you should go into your safe space. You know, the one outside of time. It's as safe as can be. Oh, burn.

You're right, like god you can't get to the outside of time because there's no evidence that it exists.
It is really safe, thanks. But commenting 'Oh, burn' on your own remark which didn't seem to ignite anything at all just seems pretty sad and perhaps reveals your own triggered nature.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
I, along with other people on this thread can see that you're not embarrassed. Typically less educated people (putting it politely. See i can be polite) would wouldn't understand that they should feel embarrassed, and that's because they are less educated.

Okay, okay, calm down.

Condescension isn't rude. As detailed above it had a positive effect on you, in that you began to learn something.
Condescension is rude and it had no positive effect as I detailed above.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
Okay, no need to shout. My my, you're angry. You're very much allowed to assume, but that's not what you've been saying. You've been stating that god is the first cause rather than you assume it to be the first cause. Big difference.
I said I believe God is the uncaused cause. :]

I'm not angry, I just used CapsLock to emphasis the words but if your triggered nature interprets it as that - I'll just use bold next time.

(Original post by !!mentor!!)
The on-going big bang is not a theory. I even said it was postulated as a hypothesis. The fact you'd use the word 'theory' in such a context is a fail so big it can only exist outside of time. You really need to understand what words mean before you use them or were you redefining that as well? You need to learn the difference between theory and hypothesis.

Again, linking abiogenesis and evolution is a false dichotomy. They aren't related so why you would continually try to link them shows you don't understand them.

I have no misconceptions about christianity. It is evil and it is great that less and less people by the day identify as being christian. Praise the lord.
Theory and hypothesis are synonyms and although different can be used interchangeably as they both have different meanings.

Linking abiogenesis and evolution is just me being a pedant in response to your being a pedant earlier in this thread because you could also simply link the beginning of the Universe and the Big Bang.

You have overwhelming misconceptions about Christianity, it is not evil but if you actually want to debate on that, you can start a thread.
14. (Original post by Robby2312)
You say looking at reality helps you understand the creator.Maybe that is so.Possibly it lends support for a diestic god.But that god is very different to the kind of god talked about in the bible.The god in the bible exhibits jealousy,rage,anger and love as well at times.These are all human attributes.I ts a very personal view of god and thats the kind of god most people mean when they talk about god.Most people dont view god as just some abstract theological concept.They take the view that god
constantly intervenes in human affairs.And I think to believe in such a god does require blind faith in whatever the holy books tells you is true about god.I have more respect for the diestic impersonal view of god but I still think it is unnecessary and doesnt really solve the problem of origins.
I do not believe in a diestic God because as I pointed out in my initial post, an eternal creator can only create something that is finite in existence if it chooses to rather than due to necessity. This means since it had the choice to create the universe it must be personal. It can therefore choose to do things like for example it can listen and grant prayers due to this attribute of being personal. *
15. (Original post by StudyJosh)
A god can create something out of nothing but nothing can't create it self out of nothing.
Special Pleading with no evidence to support it whatsoever. It violates basic logic. If theists can say God can create something from nothing then they're not really in a position to disagree with materialists who say the same thing, even though most of them don't actually say that.

(Original post by StudyJosh)
The Big Bang isn't even about cosmic origins. Again, I quote:

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.
Again, you are not reading what I wrote. The Big Bang most certainly describes how our universe inflated from a singularity. What the theory doesn't explain is the origin of the singularity and no one has claimed it does. But that doesn't mean "God did it". I'd say the only reason science hasn't yet been able to answer that is simply because it's a relatively new theory and there hasn't been centuries of work on it. Give it another century or less and I'm almost certain we'll have concrete answers for "before" the Big Bang.

You could not compare that to abiogenesis and evolution because again, they are two separate theories. Evolution does not bother dealing with how life actually arose. Whereas the Big Bang theory will most probably eventually answer the origins of the singularity, the theory of evolution will never address the origins of life because it's not concerned with it.

Saying "evolution depends on abiogenesis because without life nothing would evolve" is a pretty moot and bizarre point. It's like saying "windows depend on sand because without sand you couldn't make windows". It is a total non-point.
16. (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Nothing I said was ignorant.

I already commented on your infinite regress point and how it isn't an argument many atheists make. The point about infinities in a mathematical sense refers to your other comments about not being able to traverse infinities when we very clearly can. We do so every day.

Initially you said nothing about space, merely that two identical things would mean that only one of them is real, which is clearly nonsense.

But two gods would not take up the same space because you yourself have been saying that God existed before space, therefore by your own line of reasoning gods don't need space to exist! So you haven't at all refuted the possibility of multiple gods.

I don't believe that is true. Muslims constantly go on about Allah being totally separate from and unlike his creation.

Every argument you've put forward has been debunked right here and right now. Saying "oh someone else has refuted you" is lazy and hot air. Present the cogent logic for your arguments because it's are clearly lacking.

As Robby explained to you, that stance is ridiculous and not really faith. You have to accept some things as reality to even be able to make basic thought processes, it is nothing at all like faith when discussed in a religious context.

No, they don't have faith that they are true. 100% proofs only exist in mathematics, but scientific theories are as close as is empirically possible to proofs so for all intents and purposes they are proof. Anything else is just semantics.

Excuse me? I think you'll find the ignorant one is yourself as the second law does not state matter and energy can be created. I have already shown how you refuted and contradicted yourself. Thermodynamics shows matter and energy cannot be created and you have not provided any evidence of matter and energy being created.

It wouldn't require an infinite regress of changes because there's no reason it couldn't have been in a stable or constant state for most of eternity. You're not making much sense now. You can't use the laws of thermodynamics to back up your argument when it suits you and discard them when it doesn't. And something being eternal does not automatically invoke the problem of infinite regress because you believe God is eternal and presumably you don't see infinite regress as a barrier to that belief.

Not so because as I just said, there is the ability to remain constant for extended periods of time. Also, heat and kinetics are characteristics of matter, not energy. And as matter is believed to have been created at the Big Bang, before then there may have been only quantum fluctuations to which heat and kinetics don't really apply.

Hold up, who said energy began to exist? No such thing has been proven and thermodynamics disagrees. To quote you, "energy cannot be created or destroyed".

Nonsense. You cannot create something from a literal nothing, that is a logical impossibility. You have not provided any logic for God's existence, all you've down is tortured the logic and made a load of baseless assumptions.

There is no evidence the laws of thermodynamics have been broken like so. Energy simply cannot be created. Science says so and nothing you've provided shows it can be.

But it doesn't mean you do exist. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim to provide evidence, not on the sceptic to refute it.

It makes perfect sense because I can just define the rabbit as not being made from matter. After all, that's what theists have been doing for thousands of years when they made up their ideas of God, just defining it in ways that make it impossible for anyone to disprove. They had to do this because they knew there was no evidence for their existence and you haven't provided any either.

No, your logic doesn't follow at all, it is some of the worst reasoning I've seen on this site and that's truly saying something.

But fine, if you don't like the rabbit example I'll use another one which you won't be able to dismiss on the grounds of the being being composed of matter:

"Guys, there is a god who is more powerful than Allah, but there is no evidence for him because that would defeat the purpose of making Allah seem like God".
The majority of the things that you said is ignorant. You just assume you are right and don't look at things logically. You haven't debunked all of my arguments at all.

I kept on talking about infinite regress because as I said before one of the posters who I was replying to had been arguing for the case of an in infinite regress which I obviously had to point out is illogical.

Once again I must say you honestly don't read and understand what I am saying before you make your pathetic responses which seems to just be full of rage. I never ever claimed the second law of therodynamics suggest matter and energy were created. It states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed it can only change forms. Whilst on the surface this seems to suggest that they are infinitely old when we dig deeper we see they must be finite on existence. Think about it in order to change forms we just conclude that matter and energy remain in each form for a finite period of time. Since you cannot have an inifinite regress (ie an infinite number of finite events or on this case an infinite number of finite changes in form) we can conclude that matter and energy are finite in existence.*

Since this breaks the second law of therodynamics as this shows that matter and energy were created it must not follow the laws of physics and is therefore in a sense supernatural. This is consistent with the creator of the universe you cannot apply the laws of nature to be able to determine the origins of nature. As mentioned before if I created a computer game the characters of the game cannot use the laws of that game and apply it to me. I may be able to break some of the laws of that game. That doesn't mean I do not exist. This is a concept naturalists like you need to get around your heads.

You are saying you cannot create something from nothing yet everything suggests that the universe came into existence. How do you know a God didn't create it? Where is your evidence? Oh yeah you have none you just have faith that science will one day demonstrate this to be the case. By the way I'm not using the God of the gaps argument because I'm not just saying I don't know what did this therefore God did it.*

*I am using logical reasoning for why the creator would have certain qualities such as being immaterial, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the universe (or multiverse). By the way just to clarify I don't say that something was created out of literally nothing being present. Which is impossible but rather I'm saying an omnipotent being created energy out of nothing which is different. As the omnipotent being isn't nothing. If you accept the universe came into being, then you have to either accept something within we haven't discovered has broken the laws of nature and created it (which you have no evidence for and therefore requires completely blind faith) or you use logic and come to the conclusion that a being that is not limited by the laws of physics has created reality (which actually requires less faith as you can come to this conclusion based upon the evidence we have and combing it with logic).*

Regarding the rabbit if you define it as a pink rabbit and then rob it of all its attributes by saying its immaterial and invisible (which are not attributes of the colour pink as well as a rabbit) then you are not really referring to a rabbit are you? Logic 101 mate

Finally, regarding the issue of multiple Gods. I'm saying if you do not have any form of distinguishing two or more beings from each other then you have no reason to believe there is more than one being. So if you have two beings that are immaterial,omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the multiverse what distinguishes the two beings from each other? Nothing, therefore there's no reason *to believe there's more than one of these beings.

Furthermore, the existence of two of these beings leads to logical obsuridities. Say if one being created a world with unicorns and the other made it impossible to have unicorns in that world then it would lead to a logical absurdity. So this drink strayed why you cannot have two of these beings.

Think about what you are saying instead of just raging. You have not debunked any of my arguments. I have answered your silly rebuttals. Instead of going on stupid rants think deeply about what im saying.
17. (Original post by Hamzah17)
The majority of the things that you said is ignorant. You just assume you are right and don't look at things logically. You haven't debunked all of my arguments at all.
Nonsense. I have shown you why your logic is flawed and have debunked all of it. You on the other hand haven't specified any ignorant statements I made, it's just a blanket accusation often used by the religious.

Once again I must say you honestly don't read and understand what I am saying before you make your pathetic responses which seems to just be full of rage.
How are my responses full of rage? It seems that you're seeing things that aren't actually there just like you think there's evidence for God.

It states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed it can only change forms. Whilst on the surface this seems to suggest that they are infinitely old when we dig deeper we see they must be finite on existence.
No, we don not see that at all! It appears like that on the surface because that's exactly what it is. Energy cannot be created, no one has ever shown it can and the laws of nature and science show it can't. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.

Think about it in order to change forms we just conclude that matter and energy remain in each form for a finite period of time. Since you cannot have an inifinite regress (ie an infinite number of finite events or on this case an infinite number of finite changes in form) we can conclude that matter and energy are finite in existence.*
I already explained to you that kinetics and heat are really only properties of matter, not energy per se. And you don't need an infinite regress because energy could have been constantly pulsating in the same way for all eternity.

Since this breaks the second law of therodynamics as this shows that matter and energy were created it must not follow the laws of physics and is therefore in a sense supernatural.
More nonsense. You have not proven that anything violates the second law of thermodynamics. Making vague assumptions and pseudo-philosophical ramblings isn't proof. If you really had proof then you would have won the Nobel Prize in physics or chemistry for such a monumental discovery.

Also, even if your logic about breaking the law were coherent, it would not follow that the cause has to be supernatural. There is absolutely no logical step between the two, it is another baseless assumption.

This is consistent with the creator of the universe you cannot apply the laws of nature to be able to determine the origins of nature. As mentioned before if I created a computer game the characters of the game cannot use the laws of that game and apply it to me. I may be able to break some of the laws of that game. That doesn't mean I do not exist. This is a concept naturalists like you need to get around your heads.
Another cop-out just to try and wriggle out of the fact that you have no evidence for God's existence. By this line of reasoning you can't use logic to prove God exists because logic is a human construct.

Also, I didn't use the laws of nature to show its origins. I'm being intellectually honest in admitting that science does not yet know the origins of the universe, but one thing's for sure: there is no evidence for a supernatural creator of any kind.

You are saying you cannot create something from nothing yet everything suggests that the universe came into existence.
I think you're confused. The Big Bang theory does not say the universe came from nothing. It is a theory which describes the inflation of the universe from a singularity. The theory says nothing about the origins of the singularity and whether or not it is eternal. However, it's likely that science will one day be able to explain this further.

How do you know a God didn't create it? Where is your evidence? Oh yeah you have none you just have faith that science will one day demonstrate this to be the case. By the way I'm not using the God of the gaps argument because I'm not just saying I don't know what did this therefore God did it.*
As I already mentioned, the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence for your extraordinary claims, not on me to refute it. Trying to flip the burden on me just shows your desperation and the fact you know you have no evidence.

If someone said to you "there is an invisible rabbit on your head" you would say "prove it". And you would probably laugh at how ridiculous they were being if they responded with "well you can't prove there isn't!".

*I am using logical reasoning for why the creator would have certain qualities such as being immaterial, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the universe (or multiverse).
And I have shown how every line of reasoning you have used is faulty.

By the way just to clarify I don't say that something was created out of literally nothing being present. Which is impossible but rather I'm saying an omnipotent being created energy out of nothing which is different. As the omnipotent being isn't nothing. If you accept the universe came into being, then you have to either accept something within we haven't discovered has broken the laws of nature and created it (which you have no evidence for and therefore requires completely blind faith) or you use logic and come to the conclusion that a being that is not limited by the laws of physics has created reality (which actually requires less faith as you can come to this conclusion based upon the evidence we have and combing it with logic).*
This paragraph is confusing and contradictory:

1) God either created everything from nothing or something.

2) As most theists say that God was the only thing that existed before he created anything, if he created everything from something then he must have created it from himself, since he was the only thing that existed.

3) Yet the Abrahamic religions do not state that God made everything from himself, being very clear that God is different and separate from his creation.

4) This means that God must have created everything out of a literal nothing according to those religions.

5) But creating something out of a literal nothing is impossible and violates basic logic.

Regarding the rabbit if you define it as a pink rabbit and then rob it of all its attributes by saying its immaterial and invisible (which are not attributes of the colour pink as well as a rabbit) then you are not really referring to a rabbit are you? Logic 101 mate
There is actually nothing inherently un-rabbit-like about being invisible. Yes, all rabbits are visible, but that doesn't mean that were one to turn invisible that it would stop being a rabbit.

Finally, regarding the issue of multiple Gods. I'm saying if you do not have any form of distinguishing two or more beings from each other then you have no reason to believe there is more than one being. So if you have two beings that are immaterial,omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and personal creator of the multiverse what distinguishes the two beings from each other? Nothing, therefore there's no reason *to believe there's more than one of these beings.
This is fallacious because you are assuming multiple gods are identical in every way which isn't necessarily true. In any case, even if they were identical in any way and humans could not distinguish between them, that would still not mean that only one existed.

While multiple gods may share the common attributes of omnipotence, omniscience etc, they could still have their individual and different personalities and preferences. All the polytheistic religions in history have worshipped multiple gods who were different.

Think of it this way: all humans (by and large) share the same physical features and abilities yet each human is separate and an individual.

There is really no reason why a monotheistic god is more likely to be real than multiple gods. You just believe in a monotheistic one because you've been indoctrinated to since you were young. Had you been born a thousand years ago in Sweden you'd believe in Thor, Odin and Freyja.

Also, your last sentence shows you've changed the goalposts. Your point wasn't that there'd be no reason to believe in several gods, it was that there couldn't be several gods. Well I hate to break it to you, but there's no reason to believe in one god either.

Furthermore, the existence of two of these beings leads to logical obsuridities. Say if one being created a world with unicorns and the other made it impossible to have unicorns in that world then it would lead to a logical absurdity. So this drink strayed why you cannot have two of these beings.
A naïve, not well thought through example. There is no reason gods would disagree and do things uncooperatively, you know, if they're all-powerful, all-knowing and everything.

There are tonnes of logical absurdities associated with having a single god too so that really isn't a good argument.

Think about what you are saying instead of just raging. You have not debunked any of my arguments. I have answered your silly rebuttals. Instead of going on stupid rants think deeply about what im saying.
I have debunked all of your arguments as they are exclusively based on tortured logic and groundless assumptions.

I also noticed you ignored my modified example because you know you can't argue against it and that your logic was debunked. I'll repeat it once again:

"Guys, there is a god who is more powerful than Allah, but there is no evidence for him because that would defeat the purpose of making Allah seem like God". I look forward to you trying to disprove this using logic.
18. (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Special Pleading with no evidence to support it whatsoever. It violates basic logic. If theists can say God can create something from nothing then they're not really in a position to disagree with materialists who say the same thing, even though most of them don't actually say that.
It's not special pleading. God has the ability to create things and he did. But nothing is nothing and can't create anything.

I say Cause and Effect not nothing can come from nothing. God is a uncaused cause and so he caused the rest.

Creation came into existence by God's divine command and if you don't believe it, good for you. He's supernatural not natural.

(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
Again, you are not reading what I wrote. The Big Bang most certainly describes how our universe inflated from a singularity. What the theory doesn't explain is the origin of the singularity and no one has claimed it does. But that doesn't mean "God did it". I'd say the only reason science hasn't yet been able to answer that is simply because it's a relatively new theory and there hasn't been centuries of work on it. Give it another century or less and I'm almost certain we'll have concrete answers for "before" the Big Bang.

You could not compare that to abiogenesis and evolution because again, they are two separate theories. Evolution does not bother dealing with how life actually arose. Whereas the Big Bang theory will most probably eventually answer the origins of the singularity, the theory of evolution will never address the origins of life because it's not concerned with it.

Saying "evolution depends on abiogenesis because without life nothing would evolve" is a pretty moot and bizarre point. It's like saying "windows depend on sand because without sand you couldn't make windows". It is a total non-point.
I never said that means God did it. I believe God created the universe though.

I'd say in a 100 years, they still wouldn't know.

I can compare abiogenesis with evolution just like people can compare the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe.

It's pointless but it's still true.
19. (Original post by StudyJosh)
It's not special pleading. God has the ability to create things and he did. But nothing is nothing and can't create anything.
It is special pleading. It goes against basic logic and thus we can conclude it isn't true.

You haven't provided evidence for God's existence, let alone that he can create something from a literal nothing.

I say Cause and Effect not nothing can come from nothing. God is a uncaused cause and so he caused the rest.
No evidence for this claim.

Creation came into existence by God's divine command and if you don't believe it, good for you. He's supernatural not natural.
No evidence for this claim.

I never said that means God did it. I believe God created the universe though.
You can believe what you like, but you haven't provided any evidence for this.

I'd say in a 100 years, they still wouldn't know.
We probably will.

I can compare abiogenesis with evolution just like people can compare the Big Bang with the beginning of the Universe.

It's pointless but it's still true.
It's not true. Your comparison is false, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis regardless of how many times you say it.
20. (Original post by Hamzah17)
I do not believe in a diestic God because as I pointed out in my initial post, an eternal creator can only create something that is finite in existence if it chooses to rather than due to necessity. This means since it had the choice to create the universe it must be personal. It can therefore choose to do things like for example it can listen and grant prayers due to this attribute of being personal. *
It can choose to but that wouldn't mean necessarily that it does, no? I could choose to murder somebody right now for example but I'd rather just sit on my ass doing nothing instead.

This is ignoring your strange leap from infinite creating finite has to be personal because I can't quite work out how it being personal is at all related to infinity creating a finite.

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.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: November 11, 2016
Today on TSR

Can it be done?

### Give feedback to Cambridge here

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

## Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• 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