Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why people laugh at atheists

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature. Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything, which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 8:07:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature. Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything, which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?

Atheists have no belief in deity/s.

Try again.
Dwint
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.
Hitchens is the way!
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 8:09:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 8:07:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature. Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything, which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?

Atheists have no belief in deity/s.

Try again.

Right, which means they believe there is nothing beyond nature which entails believing the retardation I just wrote down.

Try and keep up, Bulprof.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 8:26:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 8:09:21 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:07 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature. Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything, which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?

Atheists have no belief in deity/s.

Try again.

Right, which means they believe there is nothing beyond nature which entails believing the retardation I just wrote down.

Try and keep up, Bulprof.

Every other human I've ever met has had a brain, some of them had brains that didn't work very well. Good to see you hanging in there.

Atheists don't believe in gods.
Whatever they believe in is a completely different subject and has nothing to do with the term atheist.
Aithlin
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 8:26:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature.

You conflate atheism and metaphysical naturalism.

Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything, which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 9:44:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature. Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything,

How the universe came about was originally from a fluctuation that must exist if a theory for Quantum Gravity exists. This fluctuation is spacetime, the scientific term for space and time, popping in and out of existence. Since this fluctuation causes space to exist it paves the way for Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations.

Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations are events where virtual particles pop in and out of existence in space. Eventually there would be a large enough Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation to cause a massive amount of energy to exist within the space created from Quantum Gravity Fluctuations. When there is an extremely large amount of energy present in the space it can cause a rapid expansion of the energy and spacetime. This is what is called the Big Bang.

It is important to note that even though the probability of these events happening is low that there was an infinite amount of time for it to happen in. You might be wondering how there could be an infinite amount of time for this to happen if spacetime was created from the Big Bang, so there was no before. The answer to that is, you are correct. There is no before the Big Bang, however there was still time, specifically Imaginary Time.

Imaginary Time is not imaginary as in not real, think of Normal Time as a real number and Imaginary Time as an imaginary number. To picture this it is easiest to imagine a complex 2D plane. Normal Time, the time that we have in our universe, is parallel to the x-axis. Going farther to the left is going farther back in time, so going farther to the right is going farther forward in time. Imaginary Time, the time that exists outside of universes, is parallel to the y-axis, making it perpendicular to Normal Time.

Normal Time only exists within a universe, meaning that before and after only happens within a universe. Imaginary time has no before, no after, it just is. It exists as real time, an infinite amount of time, but without a before and without an after. Another thing that Imaginary Time does is gets rid of the distinction between space and time, which is referred to as Euclidean spacetime. This means there is no difference between the time direction and directions in space. This means that you can, in a way, say that there also existed Imaginary Space before the Big Bang. So, since there was an infinite amount of time it guarantees that any event that could happen will happen, including the creation of universes.

To review, there was nothing. There was no matter, no energy, no time, and no space. During this there was a Quantum Gravity Fluctuation, creating spacetime. Inside of this spacetime there was a Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation that created a large amount of energy, which actually had an equal amount of negative energy to give a net of zero energy. This energy caused a rapid expansion of energy, space, and time. This is how the universe could have come from nothing.

which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

In 2009 chemist John Sutherland had an experiment to try and show that RNA can form naturally from remaking the conditions on an early Earth. In this experiment he was able to mimic the early Earth"s environments, which actually resulted in the formation of 2 of the 4 ribonecleotides required for RNA. This is a large step in showing the RNA World Hypothesis to be correct. A RNA polymer is a string of ribonucleotides, so the formation of them in nature shows RNA forming in nature is possible. Research is still goingin for the other 2.

The next important step in the RNA world hypothesis is RNA that can replicate. Tracey Lincoln and Professor Gerald Joyce worked on RNA, trying to improve in the perpetual self-replication. They succeeded in improving an RNA enzyme so that it fulfilled the goal of perpetual replication.

They did not stop at that, they also mixed 12 different cross-replicating RNA enzymes together to see what would happen. There was survival of the fittest and mutations. RNA enzymes that act similar to life without being life.

So, we have seen the potential of RNA to form in nature. We have seen that certain strand of RNA can replicate and "evolve". This gives the RNA world hypothesis a lot of credit.

But, what else do we have? Well, RNA and DNA have 2 main differences. DNA is double stranded and RNA has a hydroxyl group. The amazing thing is that we only have one of these things left to attempt in science.

Double stranded RNA actually does exist, and it can actually work similarly to DNA in certain situations. ds-RNA can suppress certain gene expressions in plants and other organisms. It has also produced gene-specific phenotypes in Trypanosoma brucei.

Now, imagine a strand of RNA that was both double stranded and could replicate. The only major difference between that strand of RNA and DNA is the existence of a hydroxyl group on the RNA. Even if this has not yet been shown it does not mean that it is not possible, it actually is most likely probable under the right conditions.

So, we have RNA and a possible DNA, but is that life? Not yet. We are missing one thing still: proteins.

Well, protein synthesis might actually be possible with just RNA and a few amino acids, the building block of protein. It would start with RNA that binds to amino acids, allowing the RNA to serve as a template to non-random polymerization of a couple different amino acids.

It is also possible that certain ribozymes, like ones that have been created in labs, could have existed and acted worked with amino acids to potentially lead to protein synthesis.

Even if the original protein synthesis would be crude it would improve drastically by the catalysis of peptide bond formation, which has no problem in the evolutionary process.

It is also believed that ten of the amino acids believed to have existed on early Earth were able to form foldable proteins in high-salt environments.

Now, where did the amino acids come from? Many people like to point out that Urey-Miller experiment does not work because it was not the proper atmosphere. They do not know about the second experiment that was done. In this one a mix of volcanic gasses, like hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, were exposed to an electrical charge. This mix actually coincides with early Earth"s atmosphere, and the experiment shows that volcanic activity and lightning could have played a role in the formation of life.

Not only does this experiment help, but amino acids are not unique to Earth. Amino acids have actually been found on meteorites. The surprising thing is that some of the amino acids found on the meteorites actually match with the amino acids formed in the experiment listed above.

What we can see is that it might actually be very possible for an RNA world to become the DNA, RNA, Protein world we have today. With DNA, RNA, and proteins present it is not that unlikely that single-celled organisms could form.

This shows that abiogenesis being the origin of life is actually very probable. There are still some experiments that need to be completed, but the experiments that have been done show that it is one of the likeliest explanation about the origin of life.

How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?

Where is your evidence for God? The Null Hypothesis supports the atheist position, so the burden of proof is on you. Atheism is the logical position to take.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:09:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 9:44:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

You realize that people can simply look up what you're saying on Google and realize that much of this is plagiarized, right?

I'm not taking the thread starter's position -- in fact, I think what he is saying is absolutely ridiculous, and there is a strong secular case for the origins of the universe. But, please, do not copy and paste someone else's work as though it is your own.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:18:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:09:47 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 9:44:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:



You realize that people can simply look up what you're saying on Google and realize that much of this is plagiarized, right?

How much is plagiarized? I have posted this stuff on other sites, a couple of my friends have my permission to do the same. The only places I can see this being seen as possibly plagiarized is on experienceproject.com (one of my accounts I use when I am bored called MrAtheism, which I also made an alt account on this site, mratheist I believe, in case people want a more non-serious religious debate) and on some of my debates on this site. The information does come from other sources, but it is not plagiarized.

I'm not taking the thread starter's position -- in fact, I think what he is saying is absolutely ridiculous, and there is a strong secular case for the origins of the universe. But, please, do not copy and paste someone else's work as though it is your own.

It is not someone else's work. I have an account that I no longer use on experienceproject called SNP1 and my alt for when I am bored called mratheism. I did not plagiarize anything here. I can even prove it by logging in as my mratheist and commenting. I can even log in on experience project later (website won't load for me right now) and post a comment there to confirm it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:20:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:18:20 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:09:47 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 9:44:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:



You realize that people can simply look up what you're saying on Google and realize that much of this is plagiarized, right?

How much is plagiarized? I have posted this stuff on other sites, a couple of my friends have my permission to do the same. The only places I can see this being seen as possibly plagiarized is on experienceproject.com (one of my accounts I use when I am bored called MrAtheism, which I also made an alt account on this site, mratheist I believe, in case people want a more non-serious religious debate) and on some of my debates on this site. The information does come from other sources, but it is not plagiarized.

I was referring to experienceproject.com, yeah. Are you saying you wrote that piece?

I'm not taking the thread starter's position -- in fact, I think what he is saying is absolutely ridiculous, and there is a strong secular case for the origins of the universe. But, please, do not copy and paste someone else's work as though it is your own.

It is not someone else's work. I have an account that I no longer use on experienceproject called SNP1 and my alt for when I am bored called mratheism. I did not plagiarize anything here. I can even prove it by logging in as my mratheist and commenting. I can even log in on experience project later (website won't load for me right now) and post a comment there to confirm it.

Fair enough.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:37:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:20:10 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:18:20 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:09:47 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 9:44:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:



You realize that people can simply look up what you're saying on Google and realize that much of this is plagiarized, right?

How much is plagiarized? I have posted this stuff on other sites, a couple of my friends have my permission to do the same. The only places I can see this being seen as possibly plagiarized is on experienceproject.com (one of my accounts I use when I am bored called MrAtheism, which I also made an alt account on this site, mratheist I believe, in case people want a more non-serious religious debate) and on some of my debates on this site. The information does come from other sources, but it is not plagiarized.

I was referring to experienceproject.com, yeah. Are you saying you wrote that piece?

Yes. The part about the origin of the universe is a copy and paste from an essay I wrote for school a couple months ago that I first posted on experienceproject. The RNA one actually was originally put up on this site in one of my debates against bornofgod.

I'm not taking the thread starter's position -- in fact, I think what he is saying is absolutely ridiculous, and there is a strong secular case for the origins of the universe. But, please, do not copy and paste someone else's work as though it is your own.

It is not someone else's work. I have an account that I no longer use on experienceproject called SNP1 and my alt for when I am bored called mratheism. I did not plagiarize anything here. I can even prove it by logging in as my mratheist and commenting. I can even log in on experience project later (website won't load for me right now) and post a comment there to confirm it.

Fair enough.

Should I?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:38:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:37:01 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:20:10 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:18:20 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:09:47 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 9:44:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:



You realize that people can simply look up what you're saying on Google and realize that much of this is plagiarized, right?

How much is plagiarized? I have posted this stuff on other sites, a couple of my friends have my permission to do the same. The only places I can see this being seen as possibly plagiarized is on experienceproject.com (one of my accounts I use when I am bored called MrAtheism, which I also made an alt account on this site, mratheist I believe, in case people want a more non-serious religious debate) and on some of my debates on this site. The information does come from other sources, but it is not plagiarized.

I was referring to experienceproject.com, yeah. Are you saying you wrote that piece?

Yes. The part about the origin of the universe is a copy and paste from an essay I wrote for school a couple months ago that I first posted on experienceproject. The RNA one actually was originally put up on this site in one of my debates against bornofgod.

I'm not taking the thread starter's position -- in fact, I think what he is saying is absolutely ridiculous, and there is a strong secular case for the origins of the universe. But, please, do not copy and paste someone else's work as though it is your own.

It is not someone else's work. I have an account that I no longer use on experienceproject called SNP1 and my alt for when I am bored called mratheism. I did not plagiarize anything here. I can even prove it by logging in as my mratheist and commenting. I can even log in on experience project later (website won't load for me right now) and post a comment there to confirm it.

Fair enough.

Should I?

No I believe you lol. Sorry for the confusion.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:39:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:38:12 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:37:01 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:20:10 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:18:20 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:09:47 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/16/2014 9:44:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:



You realize that people can simply look up what you're saying on Google and realize that much of this is plagiarized, right?

How much is plagiarized? I have posted this stuff on other sites, a couple of my friends have my permission to do the same. The only places I can see this being seen as possibly plagiarized is on experienceproject.com (one of my accounts I use when I am bored called MrAtheism, which I also made an alt account on this site, mratheist I believe, in case people want a more non-serious religious debate) and on some of my debates on this site. The information does come from other sources, but it is not plagiarized.

I was referring to experienceproject.com, yeah. Are you saying you wrote that piece?

Yes. The part about the origin of the universe is a copy and paste from an essay I wrote for school a couple months ago that I first posted on experienceproject. The RNA one actually was originally put up on this site in one of my debates against bornofgod.

I'm not taking the thread starter's position -- in fact, I think what he is saying is absolutely ridiculous, and there is a strong secular case for the origins of the universe. But, please, do not copy and paste someone else's work as though it is your own.

It is not someone else's work. I have an account that I no longer use on experienceproject called SNP1 and my alt for when I am bored called mratheism. I did not plagiarize anything here. I can even prove it by logging in as my mratheist and commenting. I can even log in on experience project later (website won't load for me right now) and post a comment there to confirm it.

Fair enough.

Should I?

No I believe you lol. Sorry for the confusion.

Its fine, I guess that is what happens when you have multiple usernames and use the same information with both.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 11:16:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature. Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything, which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?

Theists also claim that God is out of nothing. How can theists blame atheists when they are themselves claiming that something can be out of nothing. The only difference is that atheists say that world required no creator. Atheists don't say that there is no reason of existence. Atheists just say that the reasons are not supernatural and there are only natural reasons of existence.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 7:56:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature. Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything, which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?

You're really going to cast an insult like that over the flimsy piece of anecdotal inference such as the drivel you just spat out? Seriously? We don't yet know what brought about our universe. But accepting that I don't know is far superior to accepting the trash written in the bible by a bunch of ignorant morons that "wandered for forty years" in a strip of land that would take only a year to traverse, on foot, walking in a straight line. It's a damn sight better that putting faith in a manuscript so riddled with ignorance that today's middle school attendees can poke holes in its contents. It's infinitely superior to accepting (on faith) that a bunch of goat herders got the universe right when they weren't even aware of the fact that the moon is not a "light," but a reflective body.

It's a good deal more acceptable to the rational mind to accept that we are currently ignorant than to ignorantly assert knowledge of something that can't be known by current minds. In all seriousness, when you talk about "blows to the head" and "retardation," you give away a great deal about your lack of critical faculties. This thread is an obvious attempt to sling mud, because there is zero substance to the introductory hogwash, immediately prior to the slinging...
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:27:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 11:16:47 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature. Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything, which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?

Theists also claim that God is out of nothing. How can theists blame atheists when they are themselves claiming that something can be out of nothing. The only difference is that atheists say that world required no creator. Atheists don't say that there is no reason of existence. Atheists just say that the reasons are not supernatural and there are only natural reasons of existence.

God was never created. God never came out of anything. In fact God is outside of time and space.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:36:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:27:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:16:47 AM, debateuser wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature. Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything, which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?

Theists also claim that God is out of nothing. How can theists blame atheists when they are themselves claiming that something can be out of nothing. The only difference is that atheists say that world required no creator. Atheists don't say that there is no reason of existence. Atheists just say that the reasons are not supernatural and there are only natural reasons of existence.

God was never created. God never came out of anything. In fact God is outside of time and space.

Theists are claiming that God is all by himself and existed all along. Is this correct. Then why are they blaming atheists.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:38:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 9:44:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 7:49:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheism is a claim that there is nothing above nature. Therefore, the atheist must think that the universe erupted from nothing, and that nothing then became everything,

How the universe came about was originally from a fluctuation that must exist if a theory for Quantum Gravity exists. This fluctuation is spacetime, the scientific term for space and time, popping in and out of existence. Since this fluctuation causes space to exist it paves the way for Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations.

Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations are events where virtual particles pop in and out of existence in space. Eventually there would be a large enough Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation to cause a massive amount of energy to exist within the space created from Quantum Gravity Fluctuations. When there is an extremely large amount of energy present in the space it can cause a rapid expansion of the energy and spacetime. This is what is called the Big Bang.

It is important to note that even though the probability of these events happening is low that there was an infinite amount of time for it to happen in. You might be wondering how there could be an infinite amount of time for this to happen if spacetime was created from the Big Bang, so there was no before. The answer to that is, you are correct. There is no before the Big Bang, however there was still time, specifically Imaginary Time.

Imaginary Time is not imaginary as in not real, think of Normal Time as a real number and Imaginary Time as an imaginary number. To picture this it is easiest to imagine a complex 2D plane. Normal Time, the time that we have in our universe, is parallel to the x-axis. Going farther to the left is going farther back in time, so going farther to the right is going farther forward in time. Imaginary Time, the time that exists outside of universes, is parallel to the y-axis, making it perpendicular to Normal Time.

Normal Time only exists within a universe, meaning that before and after only happens within a universe. Imaginary time has no before, no after, it just is. It exists as real time, an infinite amount of time, but without a before and without an after. Another thing that Imaginary Time does is gets rid of the distinction between space and time, which is referred to as Euclidean spacetime. This means there is no difference between the time direction and directions in space. This means that you can, in a way, say that there also existed Imaginary Space before the Big Bang. So, since there was an infinite amount of time it guarantees that any event that could happen will happen, including the creation of universes.

To review, there was nothing. There was no matter, no energy, no time, and no space. During this there was a Quantum Gravity Fluctuation, creating spacetime. Inside of this spacetime there was a Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation that created a large amount of energy, which actually had an equal amount of negative energy to give a net of zero energy. This energy caused a rapid expansion of energy, space, and time. This is how the universe could have come from nothing.

which then conveniantly became self-replicating things, which then became intelligent beings.

In 2009 chemist John Sutherland had an experiment to try and show that RNA can form naturally from remaking the conditions on an early Earth. In this experiment he was able to mimic the early Earth"s environments, which actually resulted in the formation of 2 of the 4 ribonecleotides required for RNA. This is a large step in showing the RNA World Hypothesis to be correct. A RNA polymer is a string of ribonucleotides, so the formation of them in nature shows RNA forming in nature is possible. Research is still goingin for the other 2.


How can anyone reasonably be an atheist? Blows to the head or just in-built retardation?

Where is your evidence for God? The Null Hypothesis supports the atheist position, so the burden of proof is on you. Atheism is the logical position to take.

Imaginary Time is a hypothesis with no evidence backing it up.

Quantum fluctuations get absorbed and balanced out so they create no real effect. This is the quantum dissipation theorem which is well supported by the math and experimentation.

You are suggesting an activity could happen before there was time. and that a force more than the homogenous energy level in a singularity happened.

John Sutherland's RN experiments got 1/2 of the RNA nucleotides and he did this in a very controlled laboratory experiment with very controlled amounts of radiation, shielding, heating and cooling. He had to do it in a very precise way or the nucleic acids would be destroyed. And RNA is more than just 2 acids. This process would completely destroy the ribose sugars needed as a back bone for RNA and as the chain links that connect enough RNA to be self replicating.

You seem to be grasping at straws to make your faithful leaps in logic.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:42:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.

HA HA HA.. yeah way to pick up the hypocritical banner of the Atheist.

In the Kalam Argument Atheists have contention with the "begin to exist have a cause". The reasoning is because everything in the universe may have a cause but you can not argue the same for the universe as a whole.

SO which way is it Bulproof??? the universe can be eternal and have no beginning existing from nothing.

But God can not?

The absurdity is your brain washed thinking. In situation A needs evidence if it support God's existence.

But if situation A does not support God's existence Atheist can accept it with no observational evidence or logic.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 11:04:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:42:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.

HA HA HA.. yeah way to pick up the hypocritical banner of the Atheist.

In the Kalam Argument Atheists have contention with the "begin to exist have a cause". The reasoning is because everything in the universe may have a cause but you can not argue the same for the universe as a whole.

SO which way is it Bulproof??? the universe can be eternal and have no beginning existing from nothing.

But God can not?

The absurdity is your brain washed thinking. In situation A needs evidence if it support God's existence.

But if situation A does not support God's existence Atheist can accept it with no observational evidence or logic.

Oh I'm sorry that you don't like the stupidity of the christian argument used on your little god thingy. hahahaha

If your god has always existed then so to has the universe, since your god has always known that the universe exists.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 11:24:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 11:04:53 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:42:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.

HA HA HA.. yeah way to pick up the hypocritical banner of the Atheist.

In the Kalam Argument Atheists have contention with the "begin to exist have a cause". The reasoning is because everything in the universe may have a cause but you can not argue the same for the universe as a whole.

SO which way is it Bulproof??? the universe can be eternal and have no beginning existing from nothing.

But God can not?

The absurdity is your brain washed thinking. In situation A needs evidence if it support God's existence.

But if situation A does not support God's existence Atheist can accept it with no observational evidence or logic.

Oh I'm sorry that you don't like the stupidity of the christian argument used on your little god thingy. hahahaha

If your god has always existed then so to has the universe, since your god has always known that the universe exists.

"always" is a temporal word. How has a God that is nontemporal existing outside of time "always" known something?

If you are implying that God Knows all of the universe for all the time the universe has been around and will be around then, yes you are correct.

The stupidity has been pointed out. Atheist demand evidence when it suits them but claims no evidence is needed when making other claims that suit them.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 11:47:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 11:24:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:04:53 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:42:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.

HA HA HA.. yeah way to pick up the hypocritical banner of the Atheist.

In the Kalam Argument Atheists have contention with the "begin to exist have a cause". The reasoning is because everything in the universe may have a cause but you can not argue the same for the universe as a whole.

SO which way is it Bulproof??? the universe can be eternal and have no beginning existing from nothing.

But God can not?

The absurdity is your brain washed thinking. In situation A needs evidence if it support God's existence.

But if situation A does not support God's existence Atheist can accept it with no observational evidence or logic.

Oh I'm sorry that you don't like the stupidity of the christian argument used on your little god thingy. hahahaha

If your god has always existed then so to has the universe, since your god has always known that the universe exists.

"always" is a temporal word. How has a God that is nontemporal existing outside of time "always" known something?

If you are implying that God Knows all of the universe for all the time the universe has been around and will be around then, yes you are correct.

The stupidity has been pointed out. Atheist demand evidence when it suits them but claims no evidence is needed when making other claims that suit them.
Does your god know everything? When did he learn everything?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 11:50:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 11:47:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:24:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:04:53 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:42:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.

HA HA HA.. yeah way to pick up the hypocritical banner of the Atheist.

In the Kalam Argument Atheists have contention with the "begin to exist have a cause". The reasoning is because everything in the universe may have a cause but you can not argue the same for the universe as a whole.

SO which way is it Bulproof??? the universe can be eternal and have no beginning existing from nothing.

But God can not?

The absurdity is your brain washed thinking. In situation A needs evidence if it support God's existence.

But if situation A does not support God's existence Atheist can accept it with no observational evidence or logic.

Oh I'm sorry that you don't like the stupidity of the christian argument used on your little god thingy. hahahaha

If your god has always existed then so to has the universe, since your god has always known that the universe exists.

"always" is a temporal word. How has a God that is nontemporal existing outside of time "always" known something?

If you are implying that God Knows all of the universe for all the time the universe has been around and will be around then, yes you are correct.

The stupidity has been pointed out. Atheist demand evidence when it suits them but claims no evidence is needed when making other claims that suit them.
Does your god know everything? When did he learn everything?

My God is not human he was not born, and had to go to school. I have already shown you that his omniscience comes from his very nature. It is not a learned thing.

This is a classic anthropomorphic straw man. Atheist is trying to explain god in human terms. And then dismisses God because he is not human? Absurd and illogical. brain dead questioning.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 12:06:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 11:50:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:47:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:24:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:04:53 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:42:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.

HA HA HA.. yeah way to pick up the hypocritical banner of the Atheist.

In the Kalam Argument Atheists have contention with the "begin to exist have a cause". The reasoning is because everything in the universe may have a cause but you can not argue the same for the universe as a whole.

SO which way is it Bulproof??? the universe can be eternal and have no beginning existing from nothing.

But God can not?

The absurdity is your brain washed thinking. In situation A needs evidence if it support God's existence.

But if situation A does not support God's existence Atheist can accept it with no observational evidence or logic.

Oh I'm sorry that you don't like the stupidity of the christian argument used on your little god thingy. hahahaha

If your god has always existed then so to has the universe, since your god has always known that the universe exists.

"always" is a temporal word. How has a God that is nontemporal existing outside of time "always" known something?

If you are implying that God Knows all of the universe for all the time the universe has been around and will be around then, yes you are correct.

The stupidity has been pointed out. Atheist demand evidence when it suits them but claims no evidence is needed when making other claims that suit them.
Does your god know everything? When did he learn everything?

My God is not human he was not born, and had to go to school. I have already shown you that his omniscience comes from his very nature. It is not a learned thing.

This is a classic anthropomorphic straw man. Atheist is trying to explain god in human terms. And then dismisses God because he is not human? Absurd and illogical. brain dead questioning.

You need to start responding to what is written not your preconceived notion of what will be written.

As you said always is a temporal measure and now you claim that your god by his nature has always known what he knows. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
You want to make claims about your god and when questioned want to claim that it is not understandable, not knowable. Cognitive dissonance is human trait that should result in understanding rather than equivocation. Unfortunately for the religious understanding leads to damnation.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 12:12:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 12:06:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:50:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:47:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:24:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:04:53 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:42:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.

HA HA HA.. yeah way to pick up the hypocritical banner of the Atheist.

In the Kalam Argument Atheists have contention with the "begin to exist have a cause". The reasoning is because everything in the universe may have a cause but you can not argue the same for the universe as a whole.

SO which way is it Bulproof??? the universe can be eternal and have no beginning existing from nothing.

But God can not?

The absurdity is your brain washed thinking. In situation A needs evidence if it support God's existence.

But if situation A does not support God's existence Atheist can accept it with no observational evidence or logic.

Oh I'm sorry that you don't like the stupidity of the christian argument used on your little god thingy. hahahaha

If your god has always existed then so to has the universe, since your god has always known that the universe exists.

"always" is a temporal word. How has a God that is nontemporal existing outside of time "always" known something?

If you are implying that God Knows all of the universe for all the time the universe has been around and will be around then, yes you are correct.

The stupidity has been pointed out. Atheist demand evidence when it suits them but claims no evidence is needed when making other claims that suit them.
Does your god know everything? When did he learn everything?

My God is not human he was not born, and had to go to school. I have already shown you that his omniscience comes from his very nature. It is not a learned thing.

This is a classic anthropomorphic straw man. Atheist is trying to explain god in human terms. And then dismisses God because he is not human? Absurd and illogical. brain dead questioning.

You need to start responding to what is written not your preconceived notion of what will be written.

As you said always is a temporal measure and now you claim that your god by his nature has always known what he knows. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
You want to make claims about your god and when questioned want to claim that it is not understandable, not knowable. Cognitive dissonance is human trait that should result in understanding rather than equivocation. Unfortunately for the religious understanding leads to damnation.

I answered both your questions. I told you your questions do not apply because they a an action that progresses in time. I gave you the same answer in two different ways.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 12:17:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 12:12:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/17/2014 12:06:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:50:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:47:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:24:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:04:53 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:42:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.

HA HA HA.. yeah way to pick up the hypocritical banner of the Atheist.

In the Kalam Argument Atheists have contention with the "begin to exist have a cause". The reasoning is because everything in the universe may have a cause but you can not argue the same for the universe as a whole.

SO which way is it Bulproof??? the universe can be eternal and have no beginning existing from nothing.

But God can not?

The absurdity is your brain washed thinking. In situation A needs evidence if it support God's existence.

But if situation A does not support God's existence Atheist can accept it with no observational evidence or logic.

Oh I'm sorry that you don't like the stupidity of the christian argument used on your little god thingy. hahahaha

If your god has always existed then so to has the universe, since your god has always known that the universe exists.

"always" is a temporal word. How has a God that is nontemporal existing outside of time "always" known something?

If you are implying that God Knows all of the universe for all the time the universe has been around and will be around then, yes you are correct.

The stupidity has been pointed out. Atheist demand evidence when it suits them but claims no evidence is needed when making other claims that suit them.
Does your god know everything? When did he learn everything?

My God is not human he was not born, and had to go to school. I have already shown you that his omniscience comes from his very nature. It is not a learned thing.

This is a classic anthropomorphic straw man. Atheist is trying to explain god in human terms. And then dismisses God because he is not human? Absurd and illogical. brain dead questioning.

You need to start responding to what is written not your preconceived notion of what will be written.

As you said always is a temporal measure and now you claim that your god by his nature has always known what he knows. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
You want to make claims about your god and when questioned want to claim that it is not understandable, not knowable. Cognitive dissonance is human trait that should result in understanding rather than equivocation. Unfortunately for the religious understanding leads to damnation.

I answered both your questions. I told you your questions do not apply because they a an action that progresses in time. I gave you the same answer in two different ways.

Don't run away. Creation is an action in time. How could your god have achieved that without time?
Is your god unchanging?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 12:21:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 12:17:14 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2014 12:12:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/17/2014 12:06:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:50:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:47:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:24:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:04:53 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:42:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.

HA HA HA.. yeah way to pick up the hypocritical banner of the Atheist.

In the Kalam Argument Atheists have contention with the "begin to exist have a cause". The reasoning is because everything in the universe may have a cause but you can not argue the same for the universe as a whole.

SO which way is it Bulproof??? the universe can be eternal and have no beginning existing from nothing.

But God can not?

The absurdity is your brain washed thinking. In situation A needs evidence if it support God's existence.

But if situation A does not support God's existence Atheist can accept it with no observational evidence or logic.

Oh I'm sorry that you don't like the stupidity of the christian argument used on your little god thingy. hahahaha

If your god has always existed then so to has the universe, since your god has always known that the universe exists.

"always" is a temporal word. How has a God that is nontemporal existing outside of time "always" known something?

If you are implying that God Knows all of the universe for all the time the universe has been around and will be around then, yes you are correct.

The stupidity has been pointed out. Atheist demand evidence when it suits them but claims no evidence is needed when making other claims that suit them.
Does your god know everything? When did he learn everything?

My God is not human he was not born, and had to go to school. I have already shown you that his omniscience comes from his very nature. It is not a learned thing.

This is a classic anthropomorphic straw man. Atheist is trying to explain god in human terms. And then dismisses God because he is not human? Absurd and illogical. brain dead questioning.

You need to start responding to what is written not your preconceived notion of what will be written.

As you said always is a temporal measure and now you claim that your god by his nature has always known what he knows. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
You want to make claims about your god and when questioned want to claim that it is not understandable, not knowable. Cognitive dissonance is human trait that should result in understanding rather than equivocation. Unfortunately for the religious understanding leads to damnation.

I answered both your questions. I told you your questions do not apply because they a an action that progresses in time. I gave you the same answer in two different ways.

Don't run away. Creation is an action in time. How could your god have achieved that without time?
Is your god unchanging?

I have already explained this to you. God can exist outside and inside time. The creative act is an action in time. But there is much of God outside of time and space.

unchanging does not mean it can not perform actions inside time. You walk on land but you can go swimming.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 12:33:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 12:21:16 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/17/2014 12:17:14 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2014 12:12:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/17/2014 12:06:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:50:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:47:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:24:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:04:53 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:42:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:36:31 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/16/2014 10:23:51 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:07:53 AM, Dwint wrote:
Theist are way more reasonable, claiming that a deity infinitely more complex than the whole universe came from nothing.

No most theist claim God is eternal and never came from anything or nothing. Always has been always will be.

And yet you know from all observation that this is simply impossible, nothing is eternal.

HA HA HA.. yeah way to pick up the hypocritical banner of the Atheist.

In the Kalam Argument Atheists have contention with the "begin to exist have a cause". The reasoning is because everything in the universe may have a cause but you can not argue the same for the universe as a whole.

SO which way is it Bulproof??? the universe can be eternal and have no beginning existing from nothing.

But God can not?

The absurdity is your brain washed thinking. In situation A needs evidence if it support God's existence.

But if situation A does not support God's existence Atheist can accept it with no observational evidence or logic.

Oh I'm sorry that you don't like the stupidity of the christian argument used on your little god thingy. hahahaha

If your god has always existed then so to has the universe, since your god has always known that the universe exists.

"always" is a temporal word. How has a God that is nontemporal existing outside of time "always" known something?

If you are implying that God Knows all of the universe for all the time the universe has been around and will be around then, yes you are correct.

The stupidity has been pointed out. Atheist demand evidence when it suits them but claims no evidence is needed when making other claims that suit them.
Does your god know everything? When did he learn everything?

My God is not human he was not born, and had to go to school. I have already shown you that his omniscience comes from his very nature. It is not a learned thing.

This is a classic anthropomorphic straw man. Atheist is trying to explain god in human terms. And then dismisses God because he is not human? Absurd and illogical. brain dead questioning.

You need to start responding to what is written not your preconceived notion of what will be written.

As you said always is a temporal measure and now you claim that your god by his nature has always known what he knows. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
You want to make claims about your god and when questioned want to claim that it is not understandable, not knowable. Cognitive dissonance is human trait that should result in understanding rather than equivocation. Unfortunately for the religious understanding leads to damnation.

I answered both your questions. I told you your questions do not apply because they a an action that progresses in time. I gave you the same answer in two different ways.

Don't run away. Creation is an action in time. How could your god have achieved that without time?
Is your god unchanging?

I have already explained this to you. God can exist outside and inside time. The creative act is an action in time. But there is much of God outside of time and space.

unchanging does not mean it can not perform actions inside time. You walk on land but you can go swimming.
But you also claim that creation began time, how do you reconcile the two? How could your god exist within the time that he hadn't yet created and therefore how could he create anything from outside time. What was before time=god according to you. What is after creation of time = time + god.

Please stop saying you have explained things to me. What you accept as valid explanation is far from sufficient for me, thus questions that you have trouble answering.