Atheist reply to religous "question".

[nemoudeis]

Personnally, I'm a believer. I believe in non-existence of God. I say there is no chance we can prove its existence or its non-existence because we don't have any material proof so it's useless to try to argue about it. I'm an atheist just because having a religious way of life doesn't please me. Unfortunately, I haven't met a lot of moderate atheists like me. They are most of the time extremists who (just like fanatics) affirm they are right because it can't be other way (even if they can't prove it). It's a pity those people (fanatics and extremists) can't make the difference between "know" and "believe". When you believe, you trust without trying to check if it's correct or not.

I don't disagree with you, however i would like to remind you that for the longest time the world was flat. Just because we believe something today doesn't mean it's right.

Well, I just want to say that (as would say Blaise Pascal), in science, people always imply that their affirmations are right unless they made a mistake and in the current state of their knowledge. Scientists doesn't have the pretention to discover the truth, because humanity's progress doesn't have any end (until the end of humanity, of course). They know that someone will probably prove that their theories are wrong or not developped enough.

[IrrelevantComment]

I don't disagree with you, however i would like to remind you that for the longest time the world was flat. Just because we believe something today doesn't mean it's right.

Not as long as you might think. It was known since the greeks that the Earth was round. The only people in the middle ages who believed that it was flat and that the solar system was geocentric were the people who rejected science and instead chose to believe in unsubstantiated claims from the Bible. Erastothenes in 200BC already knew the radius and circumference of the Earth.

The point is that two beliefs aren't on equal standing just because neither is known to be 100% true.

Also God and Big Bang aren't mutually exclusive, God may have caused the Big Bang. And in regards to your construction analogy, it doesn't really work because you can't extrapolate from a situation like building a house to the beginning of the universe.

[BlueLight]

I don't disagree with you, however i would like to remind you that for the longest time the world was flat. Just because we believe something today doesn't mean it's right.

Not as long as you might think. It was known since the greeks that the Earth was round. The only people in the middle ages who believed that it was flat and that the solar system was geocentric were the people who rejected science and instead chose to believe in unsubstantiated claims from the Bible. Erastothenes in 200BC already knew the radius and circumference of the Earth.

I'm sorry but does this change anything i said at all? I could quote you the things the Germans did in the name of science and say that science is evil.
Also since you seem so sure of when i am referring... what time was i referring to?.. you know what that's a tangent that's pointless so don't answer.

The point is that two beliefs aren't on equal standing just because neither is known to be 100% true.

Never was my point and well as i've said from what i know there is more reason to believe in fairy tail gods then the big band. The big band just doesn't make sense to me unless you add variables which is cheating. You need matter or energy, they have to come from so where but according to most scientist it's likely there was energy before the big bang.

Sure, you could say the same thing about god. But lets say we go by the deductive definition of god, "He can do anything he so well pleases and is always correct."
Well lets say the universe had rules for normal mortals then that allowed for matter to be created out of air. well by definition god could rewrite that rule to say "no new matter is created for mortals."
I know how fairy taily this sounds but there is logic behind it that makes sense even if it is unlikely.

For the big bang, one of two things are required; Matter, or Energy. Now at the very start of the universe how i see it you don't have either or less you magically wish it.
now i'm only allowing one magical wish for anything I believe and that is what i would believe in. if it's the big bang then i have to explain where we got either the energy or matter for such a thing.

Also God and Big Bang aren't mutually exclusive, God may have caused the Big Bang.

No reason it couldn't happen and i agree it's as possible as there being a god.
However this doesn't sound like the argument you're trying to make.
My argument have been based around there being a god all along and i already said in other post that if there was a God; he could wave a fairy tail wand and change the rules of the universe ; so i don't see why he couldn't do this.

And in regards to your construction analogy, it doesn't really work because you can't extrapolate from a situation like building a house to the beginning of the universe.

I admit that building the universe isn't as easy as a house but my analogy was based purely on energy and matter.
Please correct me but if you don't have either then how are you going to build the universe. I'd really like to know if there is some other type of... particle i don't know about.

[laa]

There is no proof of gods existence. That's my main issue. 'Intelligent design' is retarded for the main reason that it's not been proven AND that it does not necessarily mean that god has designed us. Could just as well be aliens or death-robots from a far away universe. Hell, it could even be The Matrix. In fact, the concept behind The Matrix might not be impossible; Future science will show if that's true or not. Current science is making it seem more and more likely to be a possibility though.

Besides, the belief of a God has one. Single. Tiny. Question. That all our known scientific theories also suffer from; Where did he come from? When was he created? Is there a father?
Intelligent design builds on the fact that the universe has a beginning; Yet god doesn't? Why? Was he just randomly created but not us? And if so, is it more likely for a major magical existence to be randomly created, than it is for a simplistic bacterial life to be randomly created?

Everything could be true. Everything could be false. We will have to go with what we've seen is reproduce-able, and assume that it is a shard of the whole truth. This, is how science works. This, is not how Christianity and many other religions work.

[BlueLight]

There is no proof of gods existence. That's my main issue. 'Intelligent design' is retarded for the main reason that it's not been proven AND that it does not necessarily mean that god has designed us. Could just as well be aliens or death-robots from a far away universe. Hell, it could even be The Matrix. In fact, the concept behind The Matrix might not be impossible; Future science will show if that's true or not. Current science is making it seem more and more likely to be a possibility though.

Besides, the belief of a God has one. Single. Tiny. Question. That all our known scientific theories also suffer from; Where did he come from? When was he created? Is there a father?
Intelligent design builds on the fact that the universe has a beginning; Yet god doesn't? Why? Was he just randomly created but not us? And if so, is it more likely for a major magical existence to be randomly created, than it is for a simplistic bacterial life to be randomly created?

SICK EDIT

I personally would exclude the death-robots with inference to best explanation but i under stand what you're trying to say. Logically i can't say they couldn't happen so much as i could say fire burning your skin doesn't really hurt. (more or less depending which you're comparing it to.)

1
2
3... questions.

1 we'll just say he was there... It sounds so much mystic-y-er-ish...
2 well if he is a deductive truth then he started at the very beginning.
3 i assume the question is, does god have a father. Well you're for getting 2 important facts. 1 god is Asexual(This was a joke.) and 2 why do you assume a being like god not only needs to reproduce but reproduce like a human? I mean why can't he reproduce like a germ or a plant with it's seeds falling to the ground?

Everything could be true. Everything could be false. We will have to go with what we've seen is reproduce-able, and assume that it is a shard of the whole truth. This, is how science works. This, is not how Christianity and many other religions work.

You realize how many time's we've invented new fields of science because we assume something works with everything else and yet it doesn't?
I can think of about 3 times.



I'm sick and i'm still arguing... Dammit. Stupid lucid brain!
Anyways i'm going to play Skyrim which is the game that proved gods exist by the pure fact you get blessing if you worship them.

[IrrelevantComment]

The big bang was the creation of this universe, and by that I mean the SPACE, not the content (energy, matter etc). You seem to be sure that energy could not have existed independent of this universe, but there is no scientific or logical basis for that. The Big Bang theory is not about what happened before the Big Bang, but happened during and after it, because it is impossible to know what came before.

There is observational evidence for the big bang, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background and the expansion of space. These are measurable effects that we KNOW are happening, whereas so far the best evidence you have provided for a god is that it is not logically impossible. In what way does that put these two beliefs on anything near an equal footing? You may as well state that the Flying Spaghetti monster is just as likely as gravity, because the FSM is possibly real and scientists have been wrong in the past.

[zeldafreak1]

http://www.explosm.net/comics/2834/

[fould12]

Science is far more reliable than any religion for several reasons. It makes testable hypothesis, meaning it can actually be disproved and it has tangible results, ie your computer.

Religion is the reliance of certain beliefs, science is a compilation of knowledge and facts gained from testing and hypothesizing. Through science, you can make belief systems in which you can rely on(making a religion); through religion, you can test your beliefs, forming knowledge and facts gained from your tests and hypotheses(science). You can rely on science and religion without conflict.

Everything could be true. Everything could be false. We will have to go with what we've seen is reproduce-able, and assume that it is a shard of the whole truth. This, is how science works. This, is not how Christianity and many other religions work.

I agree.

I disagree; as I've stated before, science and religion can co-exist, you don't need to be against a belief of god to perform scientific studies.

[Zeus Kabob]

I'm going to jump in here and say this: None of us understand why or how the big bang happened, but information points towards its having happened.

Same thing with dark matter; we don't understand it at all (and I think it's a flawed model or a misunderstood set of measurements), but that doesn't mean that we reject its implications.

I don't want to get into a big argument here, because as I said I don't understand it.

[BlueLight]

Sorry i'm to sick to really comment about anything being said right now.
I do believe fould did point out something that i also disagree with but my mind is to loopy to really tell for sure. Likely a reading error so sorry about that.

fould my sick affected mind agree with your above post.

Zeus... GOD DAMN YOU! How dare you take a critical reason class, or was it just a logic class? Now i can't touch because you guarded by giving up just a bit of ground. Now i can't fucking say "NANA! i'm a jerk and you are wrong."...

In other news Zeus' argument i have to say is very strong. It states what he believe's and I believe he's basing his beliefs on science but he doesn't really say. Now any argument i make against him has to be so strong as to question the very happening of the big bang it self which was never my goal to begin with. If i have a god that can rewrite the laws of existence then i don't think a big bang would be much trouble.

Also i edited a post quite a lot while being sick and just so people know here is the edited post.

Spoiler (click to show/hide):

There is no proof of gods existence. That's my main issue. 'Intelligent design' is retarded for the main reason that it's not been proven AND that it does not necessarily mean that god has designed us. Could just as well be aliens or death-robots from a far away universe. Hell, it could even be The Matrix. In fact, the concept behind The Matrix might not be impossible; Future science will show if that's true or not. Current science is making it seem more and more likely to be a possibility though.

Besides, the belief of a God has one. Single. Tiny. Question. That all our known scientific theories also suffer from; Where did he come from? When was he created? Is there a father?
Intelligent design builds on the fact that the universe has a beginning; Yet god doesn't? Why? Was he just randomly created but not us? And if so, is it more likely for a major magical existence to be randomly created, than it is for a simplistic bacterial life to be randomly created?

SICK EDIT

I personally would exclude the death-robots with inference to best explanation but i under stand what you're trying to say. Logically i can't say they couldn't happen so much as i could say fire burning your skin doesn't really hurt. (more or less depending which you're comparing it to.)

1
2
3... questions.

1 we'll just say he was there... It sounds so much mystic-y-er-ish...
2 well if he is a deductive truth then he started at the very beginning.
3 i assume the question is, does god have a father. Well you're for getting 2 important facts. 1 god is Asexual(This was a joke.) and 2 why do you assume a being like god not only needs to reproduce but reproduce like a human? I mean why can't he reproduce like a germ or a plant with it's seeds falling to the ground?

Everything could be true. Everything could be false. We will have to go with what we've seen is reproduce-able, and assume that it is a shard of the whole truth. This, is how science works. This, is not how Christianity and many other religions work.

You realize how many time's we've invented new fields of science because we assume something works with everything else and yet it doesn't?
I can think of about 3 times.



I'm sick and i'm still arguing... Dammit. Stupid lucid brain!
Anyways i'm going to play Skyrim which is the game that proved gods exist by the pure fact you get blessing if you worship them.

originally i had quoted the whole thing and said "I agree".
I just decided to have fun with his while editing because he sounds so "this will blow you out of the water" when my arguments for God have literally been me saying it's crazy to believe in him but it makes more sense.

[BlueLight]

The big bang was the creation of this universe, and by that I mean the SPACE, not the content (energy, matter etc). You seem to be sure that energy could not have existed independent of this universe, but there is no scientific or logical basis for that. The Big Bang theory is not about what happened before the Big Bang, but happened during and after it, because it is impossible to know what came before.

Irrelevant can you try redoing the first paragraph again please? To me it just sounds like you're "arguing in a circle" and I think you could do better.
I'm not trying to fight you here but really want to see you refine this argument before i comment on it.

There is observational evidence for the big bang, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background and the expansion of space. These are measurable effects that we KNOW are happening, whereas so far the best evidence you have provided for a god is that it is not logically impossible. In what way does that put these two beliefs on anything near an equal footing? You may as well state that the Flying Spaghetti monster is just as likely as gravity, because the FSM is possibly real and scientists have been wrong in the past.

My argument explains a lot more things while yes opening up questions but I personally don't see how those question matter much since they can already be explained with the silly rule breaking god.
All i'm saying that is makes more sense then believe that some random event just randomly got enough mass to make a universe.
You are using the big bang evidence that god does not exist and that's what i don't agree with. In fact from what i know of the big bang it doesn't explain, discount, or support god in any way shape or form. It was a event which required mass to come from somewhere.

as for the FSM... ya but a couple of guys openly said, "Ya we're making this to mock people who could believe in a high being." so I highly doubt it.

[laa]

There is no proof of gods existence. That's my main issue. 'Intelligent design' is retarded for the main reason that it's not been proven AND that it does not necessarily mean that god has designed us. Could just as well be aliens or death-robots from a far away universe. Hell, it could even be The Matrix. In fact, the concept behind The Matrix might not be impossible; Future science will show if that's true or not. Current science is making it seem more and more likely to be a possibility though.

Besides, the belief of a God has one. Single. Tiny. Question. That all our known scientific theories also suffer from; Where did he come from? When was he created? Is there a father?
Intelligent design builds on the fact that the universe has a beginning; Yet god doesn't? Why? Was he just randomly created but not us? And if so, is it more likely for a major magical existence to be randomly created, than it is for a simplistic bacterial life to be randomly created?

SICK EDIT

I personally would exclude the death-robots with inference to best explanation but i under stand what you're trying to say. Logically i can't say they couldn't happen so much as i could say fire burning your skin doesn't really hurt. (more or less depending which you're comparing it to.)

You may want to read this. Mostly for the gigs and laughs.
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2012/06/2 ... ld-gundam/

1
2
3... questions.

1 we'll just say he was there... It sounds so much mystic-y-er-ish...
2 well if he is a deductive truth then he started at the very beginning.
3 i assume the question is, does god have a father. Well you're for getting 2 important facts. 1 god is Asexual(This was a joke.) and 2 why do you assume a being like god not only needs to reproduce but reproduce like a human? I mean why can't he reproduce like a germ or a plant with it's seeds falling to the ground?

I remember you answering nr. 1. I'll just be a lazy fuck and reply with your own words to that question. :3

Bluelight - God is real because the bibles say it's real.
Talin - How do you know that the bible is telling the truth.
BlueLight - Because the bible is the divine truth from god.

My argument for why god is real is basically god is real. Now this doesn't mean god is real or not real; it just means i have a shitty argument.
One thing that annoys me is when people on the Atheist side of the fence pretend that they'll play along with your "what if".

BlueLight - for instants lets assume there is a god and lets assume he inspired the bible to be written how he wanted it.
Atheist - Alright, if there is a god then he might have done that; but, you still have the 2000 years of translating and other such stuff.
BlueLight - *FacePalm* so basically the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob can't do a simple thing of inspiring what is to be written all during the ages?
Atheist - are you fucking kidding me? Of course he can't!

2: If the bibles version of god is the deductive truth, then it's the deductive truth. If the flying spaghetti monster is the deductive truth, it's the deductive truth. Playing around with unknown constants to fill in the informational gaps isn't going to help anyone. That's like trying to solve 12390124589=x*y where the answer of either x or y is the code to a safe that explodes if you press in the wrong combination and only one answer is correct, by simply putting the numbers of a 2000 year old book while wearing a blindfold. I added the explosion part, because we won't actually get a 'click' sound and an opening door if we guess correctly.

3: Why do you assume he doesn't have to reproduce like humans? He is a constant X; He may not have the ability to reproduce without a partner. He may have the ability to clone himself. He may not have the ability to clone himself. I don't see this leading us to any conclusions. In the end, god is still the X of the universe, if you look at the scientific version of god. If we naively believe this X to be filled out by one single truth, one single entity, which haven't been the case before so we'd have no rational reason to do so, then he'd always exist. It would just be 'our perspective' of him that changed.
Besides, who is to say if there is a god, but that god did write the bible or instruct it? Who is to say he doesn't hates Christianity and Christians? That all of The Bible is fake? Maybe he's a Muslim? We can't know. He's a concept. A hypothesis. Nothing more.

Everything could be true. Everything could be false. We will have to go with what we've seen is reproduce-able, and assume that it is a shard of the whole truth. This, is how science works. This, is not how Christianity and many other religions work.

You realize how many time's we've invented new fields of science because we assume something works with everything else and yet it doesn't?
I can think of about 3 times.



I'm sick and i'm still arguing... Dammit. Stupid lucid brain!
Anyways i'm going to play Skyrim which is the game that proved gods exist by the pure fact you get blessing if you worship them.

It doesn't surprise me. But we scrapped those fields of science, I presume? If so, then it's working like it should. We guessed there was something there, we tried to reproduce it in different ways, and in the end, we found our findings to be wrong, so we scrapped it. Seems like a rational way to work.

I've gotten a slight fever and a slight headache meself. Hehe

[BlueLight]

2:
1 If the bibles version of god is the deductive truth,then it's the deductive truth.
2 If the flying spaghetti monster is the deductive truth,

1 The truth value is true or false. God being defined as a being at the start of existence of the realm and all powerful. It could be that the truth value for a god is false. Why are we talking about the bible?
2 I don't know enough about it to say if it has deductive or inductive values.

3:
1 Why do you assume he doesn't have to reproduce like humans?
2 He is a constant X; He may not have the ability to reproduce without a partner.
3 He may have the ability to clone himself.
4 He may not have the ability to clone himself.
5 I don't see this leading us to any conclusions.
6 In the end, god is still the X of the universe, if you look at the scientific version of god. If we naively believe this X to be filled out by one single truth, one single entity, which haven't been the case before so we'd have no rational reason to do so, then he'd always exist. It would just be 'our perspective' of him that changed.
7 Besides, who is to say if there is a god, but that god did write the bible or instruct it?
8 Who is to say he doesn't hates Christianity and Christians?
9 That all of The Bible is fake?
10 Maybe he's a Muslim?
11 We can't know.
12 He's a concept.
13 A hypothesis.
14 Nothing more.

1 I was mess around with you because personally i do find the question silly. Quite frankly god could reproduce however he wants to.
2 by definition he can reproduce without a partner. It's not that far out. Arnold Schwarzenegger did it.
3 by definition he does.
4 nope. By definition he can clone himself.
5... no comment
6 "scientific version of god?" and this "x filled out with one truth?" Sorry, i'm not even sure what you mean by this. Can you please restate it in a non vague way?
7 Look i see what you're trying to do here and i'll make it quick for you. There is no reason to say God is the Christian god. My argument isn't about which God it is so that's pointless.
8 Didn't i explain it. Ya if he hates Christians does that change anything i've said?... quick answer is no since i'm not quoting from the bible.
9 What?... um... I think the answer would be bible would be a fake.
10 Really would you please get back on track. You keep dragging out this point and well sure lets pretend it's true... and lets pretend it's false. Does it change anything about my argument? not really. Again my argument isn't about Christianity being to only religion with a true god.
11 ... okay so what? What if i say you're insane and I, bluelight am a figment of your imagination. Now do you believe me? if you answer no then i would like if you were crazy how could you know it. I mean i personally assume i'm sane but you can't be sure that anything you see in front of you really exist.
12 - 14 ignoring.

Everything could be true. Everything could be false. We will have to go with what we've seen is reproduce-able, and assume that it is a shard of the whole truth. This, is how science works. This, is not how Christianity and many other religions work.

You realize how many time's we've invented new fields of science because we assume something works with everything else and yet it doesn't?
I can think of about 3 times.



I'm sick and i'm still arguing... Dammit. Stupid lucid brain!
Anyways i'm going to play Skyrim which is the game that proved gods exist by the pure fact you get blessing if you worship them.

It doesn't surprise me. But we scrapped those fields of science, I presume? If so, then it's working like it should. We guessed there was something there, we tried to reproduce it in different ways, and in the end, we found our findings to be wrong, so we scrapped it. Seems like a rational way to work.

I've gotten a slight fever and a slight headache meself. Hehe

Physics is one of the fields i'm thinking of... Ya i don't think they scrapped it. It's not that they're wrong or they don't work; it's just that they aren't exact enough...

[IrrelevantComment]

The big bang was the creation of this universe, and by that I mean the SPACE, not the content (energy, matter etc). You seem to be sure that energy could not have existed independent of this universe, but there is no scientific or logical basis for that. The Big Bang theory is not about what happened before the Big Bang, but happened during and after it, because it is impossible to know what came before.

Irrelevant can you try redoing the first paragraph again please? To me it just sounds like you're "arguing in a circle" and I think you could do better.
I'm not trying to fight you here but really want to see you refine this argument before i comment on it.

I'm not arguing in a circle at all. I have stated this many times but you still don't seem to get it:
1) THERE WAS ENERGY BEFORE THE BIG BANG.
2) The BB is the creation of [i]this[/u] universe, not the creation of everything, so energy existing before it fits in fine with the theory
3) There is real, observable evidence for the BB. This evidence is not superceded by your lack of understanding of the BBT, which is why almost all physicists agree on it.

My argument explains a lot more things while yes opening up questions but I personally don't see how those question matter much since they can already be explained with the silly rule breaking god.
All i'm saying that is makes more sense then believe that some random event just randomly got enough mass to make a universe.
You are using the big bang evidence that god does not exist and that's what i don't agree with. In fact from what i know of the big bang it doesn't explain, discount, or support god in any way shape or form. It was a event which required mass to come from somewhere.

Are you even listening to me? Can you please quote me in ever having said, or implied that the BB is evidence against a God. I have not been making that point at all, from the start I have been arguing that the BB happened, regardless of whether it was caused by God or not. I even stated this earlier. In fact, it is YOU who are trying to imply that the two are mutually exclusive.

4. God may, or may not, have caused the Big Bang. This doesn't change that the evidence says it happened.

And now you seem to be implying that God "planted" the evidence for the BB? Yes, god COULD have left the Cosmic Microwave Background, but why SHOULD he? It makes no sense. You are applying Occam's Razor completely wrong.

Physics is one of the fields i'm thinking of... Ya i don't think they scrapped it. It's not that they're wrong or they don't work; it's just that they aren't exact enough...

Care to justify that a little? That's not really a statement you can make without some kind of supporting evidence.

[laa]

2:
1 If the bibles version of god is the deductive truth,then it's the deductive truth.
2 If the flying spaghetti monster is the deductive truth,

1 The truth value is true or false. God being defined as a being at the start of existence of the realm and all powerful. It could be that the truth value for a god is false. Why are we talking about the bible?
2 I don't know enough about it to say if it has deductive or inductive values.

... Okay. *shrug*
Talkin' about the bible for ease of understanding. There's the holy Koran if you'd rather want to talk about that. Or just the general idea of god. *shrug*

3:
1 Why do you assume he doesn't have to reproduce like humans?
2 He is a constant X; He may not have the ability to reproduce without a partner.
3 He may have the ability to clone himself.
4 He may not have the ability to clone himself.
5 I don't see this leading us to any conclusions.
6 In the end, god is still the X of the universe, if you look at the scientific version of god. If we naively believe this X to be filled out by one single truth, one single entity, which haven't been the case before so we'd have no rational reason to do so, then he'd always exist. It would just be 'our perspective' of him that changed.
7 Besides, who is to say if there is a god, but that god did write the bible or instruct it?
8 Who is to say he doesn't hates Christianity and Christians?
9 That all of The Bible is fake?
10 Maybe he's a Muslim?
11 We can't know.
12 He's a concept.
13 A hypothesis.
14 Nothing more.

1 I was mess around with you because personally i do find the question silly. Quite frankly god could reproduce however he wants to.
2 by definition he can reproduce without a partner. It's not that far out. Arnold Schwarzenegger did it.
3 by definition he does.
4 nope. By definition he can clone himself.
5... no comment
6 "scientific version of god?" and this "x filled out with one truth?" Sorry, i'm not even sure what you mean by this. Can you please restate it in a non vague way?
7 Look i see what you're trying to do here and i'll make it quick for you. There is no reason to say God is the Christian god. My argument isn't about which God it is so that's pointless.
8 Didn't i explain it. Ya if he hates Christians does that change anything i've said?... quick answer is no since i'm not quoting from the bible.
9 What?... um... I think the answer would be bible would be a fake.
10 Really would you please get back on track. You keep dragging out this point and well sure lets pretend it's true... and lets pretend it's false. Does it change anything about my argument? not really. Again my argument isn't about Christianity being to only religion with a true god.
11 ... okay so what? What if i say you're insane and I, bluelight am a figment of your imagination. Now do you believe me? if you answer no then i would like if you were crazy how could you know it. I mean i personally assume i'm sane but you can't be sure that anything you see in front of you really exist.
12 - 14 ignoring.

1: Why do you assume he can?
2: Where is it defined that he can reproduce without a partner?
3: See above.
4: See above.
Example: Northern mythology version of gods couldn't copy themselves. Maybe they were right? Maybe not?
5: Well, I certainly don't see this getting any further...
6: I saw this in a video from some kind of supporter for intelligent design; Well, it's believed by some that a hole in our knowledge is god. So, just like y=x*2, they put god into x to find out y, where y would be the meaning of life or something like that. This is the 'scientific version' of god, the one religious scientists support.
7: It's the concept of the argument that matters. Put in any other religious text made by a god on the planet, and you'll see it fits.
8: See above; Instead of text, insert the name of a religious people; Like Jews.
9: Taking things out of context is TONNES of fun!
10: Actually... How can you know that your version of god is the real one? Making up virtual gods for discussions aren't going to break this argument.
11: Exactly. NOW you're getting it! It could be a matrix for all I knew. I could be dreaming. I could be awake. Truly, the only scientifically proven philosophical concept is nihilism. (Though I'm an existentialist.)
12: Noooo! You ignored my dramatic three-step-rocket of doom! :C

Everything could be true. Everything could be false. We will have to go with what we've seen is reproduce-able, and assume that it is a shard of the whole truth. This, is how science works. This, is not how Christianity and many other religions work.

You realize how many time's we've invented new fields of science because we assume something works with everything else and yet it doesn't?
I can think of about 3 times.



I'm sick and i'm still arguing... Dammit. Stupid lucid brain!
Anyways i'm going to play Skyrim which is the game that proved gods exist by the pure fact you get blessing if you worship them.

It doesn't surprise me. But we scrapped those fields of science, I presume? If so, then it's working like it should. We guessed there was something there, we tried to reproduce it in different ways, and in the end, we found our findings to be wrong, so we scrapped it. Seems like a rational way to work.

I've gotten a slight fever and a slight headache meself. Hehe

Physics is one of the fields i'm thinking of... Ya i don't think they scrapped it. It's not that they're wrong or they don't work; it's just that they aren't exact enough...[/quote]
... Physics?...
Like gravity and stuff?
...
Well, being exact and being on track, it's all a part of science. Physics is generally reproducible. I should know, I've had a hardcore physics teacher last year. :/

[BlueLight]

I'm going to have to withdraw. No point arguing if i have to explain the definition of god every post.

[fould12]

Personally, I see more evidence pointing towards an all-powerful governing god then no governing force whatsoever. The big bang theory being correct has nothing to do with the existence of god, since he could have created it in the first place. Now, to evaluate wether god exists or not, you have to wonder where he came from, and why he is all powerful.
The beginning of the universe is in complete mystery to most people, even the big bang theory only explains the expansion of the universe, not the actual creation. Some believe it came from nothing, some believe it was created by something greater than the universe; but what caused the creator or the universe to form?
Now, let's say there was absolutely nothing(since everything must have come from somewhere, why was it there in the first place?), why would anything be created? A better question is, why wouldn't it? If there is absolutely nothing, then there are no laws of the universe, no logic, nothing holding it to any standards; this means it could continue as nothing, or become anything. Logically, nothing can come from nothing, but since there is no logic, something can come from nothing, and that something could be anything.
Now there is the question, what is that anything, since obviously something was created, or we wouldn't be here. So far, there are 2 theories:
1. Random substances were created, that eventually formed/is forming everything today.
2. A being was created, that was everything, and presumptuously could control everything, even space and time.

If we think that 1 is true, then that means everything is random; anything could happen, any substance could do anything at any given moment. The chances of the current laws of physics being formed was very small, along with the chances of enough heat being created for the formation of stars and planets, one planet that has just the right size and distance for life, along with the creation of life; not to mention their ability to evolve. If you add up the odds, the overall chance of this scenario happening is astronomically small. The chances of this happening are probably more than a house suddenly appearing in the middle of space.
If we think that 2 is true, then we have a perfect force that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect with control of the universe. It would then make sense for everything to be created just right for us to live in.

Furthermore, from what I read in the bible, everything makes sense to me. There are no loop holes, gaps in logic, lack of morality, or conflict with recorded history. It all makes sense, it's logical, gives meaning to life, and describes how to be good, unlike other religions(some of which tell you to sacrifice your children).

Also, even if there was no god in the beginning, there is an infinite amount of time for almost anything to happen. Maybe sometime in the future, a being will be formed, so powerful that he could travel through time, and maybe re-make the universe to his liking. And since he is beyond time, he would have forever to learn everything, and in this time he could build himself up to be a perfect being. If anything is possible, then this could defiantly be the outcome.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.

[IrrelevantComment]

I agree for the most part, however I have a few small issues:

Furthermore, from what I read in the bible, everything makes sense to me. There are no loop holes, gaps in logic, lack of morality, or conflict with recorded history

So it is morally okay to:
1) Kill someone for looking at their hometown being destroyed
2) Stone gay people
3) Stone witches (yes, you also have to believe witches exist)
4) Offer your daughters up for rape (since Lot was "righteous" in God's eyes
5) Kill 42 children for mocking a bald guy
6) Commit genocide
7) Rape people (because if you don't get found, she didn't shout loud enough).
etc

And that a loving and omniscient God would make 5 of his 10 commandments about himself, and make others superfluous, and not even mention rape. 10 (don't covet) makes 7 and 8 unnecessary.

If you add up the odds, the overall chance of this scenario happening is astronomically small.

Sounds fair, but wait, didn't you just say:

The beginning of the universe is in complete mystery to most people...there are no laws of the universe, no logic, nothing holding it to any standards

So basically, it is held to absolutely no standards of logic, and we can't know anything about it, but you can work out the probability of things happening as they did? We cannot talk about the probability of the universe forming as it did unless we have a thorough understanding of HOW universes are formed, which we don't

[laa]

I'm going to have to withdraw. No point arguing if i have to explain the definition of god every post.

If you used an actually supported god that doesn't exist only in your head, defined by no one but you, then you wouldn't have to. *shrug*
Regardless, if you look at my posts, I do have one or two arguments against at such a self-defined god.

Personally, I see more evidence pointing towards an all-powerful governing god then no governing force whatsoever. The big bang theory being correct has nothing to do with the existence of god, since he could have created it in the first place. Now, to evaluate wether god exists or not, you have to wonder where he came from, and why he is all powerful.
The beginning of the universe is in complete mystery to most people, even the big bang theory only explains the expansion of the universe, not the actual creation. Some believe it came from nothing, some believe it was created by something greater than the universe; but what caused the creator or the universe to form?
Now, let's say there was absolutely nothing(since everything must have come from somewhere, why was it there in the first place?), why would anything be created? A better question is, why wouldn't it? If there is absolutely nothing, then there are no laws of the universe, no logic, nothing holding it to any standards; this means it could continue as nothing, or become anything. Logically, nothing can come from nothing, but since there is no logic, something can come from nothing, and that something could be anything.
Now there is the question, what is that anything, since obviously something was created, or we wouldn't be here. So far, there are 2 theories:
1. Random substances were created, that eventually formed/is forming everything today.
2. A being was created, that was everything, and presumptuously could control everything, even space and time.

If we think that 1 is true, then that means everything is random; anything could happen, any substance could do anything at any given moment. The chances of the current laws of physics being formed was very small, along with the chances of enough heat being created for the formation of stars and planets, one planet that has just the right size and distance for life, along with the creation of life; not to mention their ability to evolve. If you add up the odds, the overall chance of this scenario happening is astronomically small. The chances of this happening are probably more than a house suddenly appearing in the middle of space.
If we think that 2 is true, then we have a perfect force that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect with control of the universe. It would then make sense for everything to be created just right for us to live in.

Furthermore, from what I read in the bible, everything makes sense to me. There are no loop holes, gaps in logic, lack of morality, or conflict with recorded history. It all makes sense, it's logical, gives meaning to life, and describes how to be good, unlike other religions(some of which tell you to sacrifice your children).

Also, even if there was no god in the beginning, there is an infinite amount of time for almost anything to happen. Maybe sometime in the future, a being will be formed, so powerful that he could travel through time, and maybe re-make the universe to his liking. And since he is beyond time, he would have forever to learn everything, and in this time he could build himself up to be a perfect being. If anything is possible, then this could defiantly be the outcome.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.

Well, the bible has been reprinted in one thousand different copies. If it was the word of god, wouldn't one book had been enough?
Even if there is a god, there's nothing that can point towards the will of that god; One is not even able to say if he's actually involved in any of our religions.

Now, nr.1 is more likely than nr.2, for a being randomly created that is everything requires nr.1 to be true in the first place. Otherwise, he couldn't even get into existence. Now, we have to roll the dices. God or no god? Magic or no magic? Now, I will not say it's not a possibility, but I find it to be odd that nothing and randomness would randomly become order in a matter of split seconds. Would randomly create god. There, the chances of a house appearing in the middle of nothing is indeed greater than the creation of a perfect being.

The future thing seems unlikely, unless we created that being ourselves, since the original requirements for god was, that there was random and nothingness. Well, maybe our universe is destined to go back to that stage at one point. Who knows.

I won't say it couldn't happen. I'll just say it's unlikely to have happened. The creation of god. That's my thoughts on the matter.

[BlueLight]

If you used an actually supported god that doesn't exist only in your head, defined by no one but you, then you wouldn't have to. *shrug*

... well it doesn't matter.... sorry let me restate... Doesn't matter!
For us to put a truth value on it doesn't matter since we were talking about a "GOD"... also that's not a name for a being that is noun for a "all power, all knowing, and always existing, BEING"

Regardless, if you look at my posts, I do have one or two arguments against at such a self-defined god.

Fine we'll use for something like a demi-god... lets use on zeus... ya that would work

Let me just clear something up.

I was not talking about a demi-god... Thus it doesnt fucking matter!
Now please start aruging in good faith and stop with your complete bull shit.