Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So do you believe the Universe has always existed or that it suddenly emerged from nothing?
If you believe it always existed, how has the present moment arrived from eternity past?
If you believe it suddenly emerged from nothing, why did it do so?
Did nothing cause it to come into being?
I say it takes more faith to be an Atheist than to believe in a Creator.
To believe in a Creator one only needs to believe a creative force that exists independently of time and space created time and space and all that exist in it.
Highly unlikely?
Sure it is, but the two alternatives are logical dead ends.
This is where Atheists say they don't need to invent a god to explain what they don't yet know.
That way they can avoid answering the simple questions I asked.
who created the creator? there is no evidence to support a god created anything.. and if creation is the basis of everything's existence, then who or what created god?
there is scientific evidence to support how the universe came about to which I don't have enough time to go bit by bit through it for you as you don't wish to or have ever read a simple high school Science text book.
the grand scale of the universe and that which exists beyond our universe makes the tiny ramifications of our earthly existence to seem very circumstantial that most probably has happened elsewhere in the cosmos, perhaps even under different contexts of rules that apply in another universe. we exist in an expanding universe this we know..and applying common forces and how they work in our universe (gravity, inertia etc) we can conclude that the expansion came from a starting point... there is also evidence to support the existence of other universes that could possibly be contracting, where different factors might contribute to the existence of what we know or would call life, with a whole different set of physics that govern and life in it's form would be in that nature whatever it is. the point is, the possibilities given the evidence we do know from science makes it quite infinite to the human mind for comprehension, so much so that to label ONE god that came to little old earth in the form of someone named jesus in this galaxy and this universe 2000 earth years ago in the context of 6000 thousand earth years of total human existence is offensive and simpleton, and a lazy way of explaining who we are and why we're here. especially when there is no evidence to support it.. and we have so much more evidence now that explains so much more and the overwhelming likelihood that the god notion as we know it and believe it on earth and in our religious contexts is completely false, and the product of superstition...even if you want to call god a creating force.. that is a simpleton way of explaining the already understood physics at work in our universe like gravity and the possibility of new forces at work in other universes.. science is the step by step process of understanding them and expanding the human mind to comprehend them...to slap a label on it as a creating god force is just simply lazy.. especially when applied to what we do know about physics in our universe that would be like calling gravity and atomic structuring god...when 2000 years ago.. sure..it's understandable why they would call it a god or creator or creating force... but now we know it in it's proper context.. and it is not divine.. it's understood physics
the longer god and creation is held up as a viable explanation without proper evidence to support it the longer we as human beings as a whole and society will be hindered by it's confines.. what leads us humans to religion is important.. hope..the emotion behind it .. it is the same driving force that leads scientists and others to seek out everything we know through science as well it is a common trait we all share, but one is based on evidence from new tangible discoveries where the other is based on a completed story with no evidence to support it, and no desire for evidence to support it It's boughten emotionally hook line and sinker ..which is a bit disheartening imo
The Resurrection but of course you won't believe anything unless you were there and saw it for yourself. It's a wonder you believe Plato ever existed.
there is no proof that the resurrection happened.. i can't prove it didn't.. but you can't prove that it did either.. YOU are the one saying that it did in the face of it NEVER happening ever before.. so it is YOU that is in the position of providing evidence that it did..you are making the grand claim..and evidence is.not just writings from the time period that happened to say it did...because 2000 years from now imagine what writings could survive (fiction or non-fiction) that could be taken out of context and be the foundation for the religion of that day...
our religious explanations were the product of explaining what seems like infinity to the human mind in the context of earthly dealings that are tangible for people of that era to comprehend.. fast forward 2000 years and what we know from science... those religious beliefs seem as a superstitious and ignorant way of explaining our existence and the cosmos...that drive for answers, and hope in reaching beyond ourselves is a human trait that has made us pioneers, and successful as a species.. to settle those yearnings and desires on the superstitions of 2000 years ago is terrible and lazy.
take his points further and that's what I'm saying... I don't know that the sun will come up in the morning.. i have faith that it will.. but I have faith it will because it has come up every morning of my life.. THATS evidence though...
the leap of this sort of faith based on historical evidence to something with NO tangible or reoccurring evidence to draw upon is a bit of a stretch and a sketchy way of validating their position on what faith really is...it's like he's getting himself from A to C with stopping by B as just an option and if it doesn't suit you.. that's fine.. it's all faith...which is very convenient
who created the creator? there is no evidence to support a god created anything.. and if creation is the basis of everything's existence, then who or what created god?
there is scientific evidence to support how the universe came about to which I don't have enough time to go bit by bit through it for you as you don't wish to or have ever read a simple high school Science text book.
the grand scale of the universe and that which exists beyond our universe makes the tiny ramifications of our earthly existence to seem very circumstantial that most probably has happened elsewhere in the cosmos, perhaps even under different contexts of rules that apply in another universe. we exist in an expanding universe this we know..and applying common forces and how they work in our universe (gravity, inertia etc) we can conclude that the expansion came from a starting point... there is also evidence to support the existence of other universes that could possibly be contracting, where different factors might contribute to the existence of what we know or would call life, with a whole different set of physics that govern and life in it's form would be in that nature whatever it is. the point is, the possibilities given the evidence we do know from science makes it quite infinite to the human mind for comprehension, so much so that to label ONE god that came to little old earth in the form of someone named jesus in this galaxy and this universe 2000 earth years ago in the context of 6000 thousand earth years of total human existence is offensive and simpleton, and a lazy way of explaining who we are and why we're here. especially when there is no evidence to support it.. and we have so much more evidence now that explains so much more and the overwhelming likelihood that the god notion as we know it and believe it on earth and in our religious contexts is completely false, and the product of superstition...even if you want to call god a creating force.. that is a simpleton way of explaining the already understood physics at work in our universe like gravity and the possibility of new forces at work in other universes.. science is the step by step process of understanding them and expanding the human mind to comprehend them...to slap a label on it as a creating god force is just simply lazy.. especially when applied to what we do know about physics in our universe that would be like calling gravity and atomic structuring god...when 2000 years ago.. sure..it's understandable why they would call it a god or creator or creating force... but now we know it in it's proper context.. and it is not divine.. it's understood physics
the longer god and creation is held up as a viable explanation without proper evidence to support it the longer we as human beings as a whole and society will be hindered by it's confines.. what leads us humans to religion is important.. hope..the emotion behind it .. it is the same driving force that leads scientists and others to seek out everything we know through science as well it is a common trait we all share, but one is based on evidence from new tangible discoveries where the other is based on a completed story with no evidence to support it, and no desire for evidence to support it It's boughten emotionally hook line and sinker ..which is a bit disheartening imo
I would point to the order of the Universe as a strong indicator that a design was put in place.
If the Creator exists independently of time and space there needs to be no creator for the Creator since the Creator would have no beginning.
Regardless of that, something or some force needs to exist independent of finite time so that finite time can be created.
If not, we are forever lost in eternity past or eternity future with the present moment ever existing being an impossibility.
"there is also evidence to support the existence of other universes that could possibly be contracting, where different factors might contribute to the existence of what we know or would call life, with a whole different set of physics that govern and life in it's form would be in that nature whatever it is."
Seems like some pretty wild speculation for someone who doesn't believe in anything without proof.
"to slap a label on it as a creating god force is just simply lazy.."
Lazy?
Dark matter anyone?
The truth is we can't even explain this Universe without applying a fudge factor.
In truth there is no single real "Christianity". However, the religion evangelicals believe in is often a shallow, transparently self-serving ideology, a mixture of fertility cult and patriotic jingoism, and has no deep truths to speak to the human heart or wisdom to enlighten the mind.
...and six million evangelicals voted for obama...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
