Atheists don't believe in God or gods but they have no alternative theories that make sense...

[Esmeralda]

...as to how the universe came to exist or how humans became aware of our own existence.

And I've tried to get answers from atheists, but none are forthcoming.

They do like to mock those of us who do believe in God or gods, as if somehow mockery can make up for lack of answers.

And I do anticipate that they will simply do that in this thread, mock and ridicule.

Religious theories don't make any sense either, they are just the imagination of human beings, wishful thinking. No one actually knows one way or another how the universe came to be. It's all theory and imagination, religiously and scientifically.

 

[Dale Smith]

...as to how the universe came to exist or how humans became aware of our own existence.

And I've tried to get answers from atheists, but none are forthcoming.

They do like to mock those of us who do believe in God or gods, as if somehow mockery can make up for lack of answers.

And I do anticipate that they will simply do that in this thread, mock and ridicule.

Perhaps some people are ok with not having an explaination for everything. Is it better to accept that we don’t know everything or just fill in the blanks with what’s convenient?

Always the voice of reason, Slade........good on ya.

 

[cnm]

if there’s no intelligence behind that evolution, then everything you see, everything in existence: life, creation, the laws of the universe, the order, the beauty, the complexity, everything, ultimately is a result of chance.

How would natural selection affect the 'laws of the universe'?

And why would evolution be the vehicle an intelligence would choose, rather than perfect prototype, for example?

 

[cnm]

On the other hand to argue the atheist proof God doesn’t exist is equally silly.

I know of no one trying to prove god doesn't exist. Got a link or are you just building a straw man small enough for you to beat up?

 

[Karl Rand]

We keep saying "WE DON'T KNOW" but it never penetrates the holy fog.

Oh I heard you loud and clear.

If we accept without question this idea of ‘the universe getting here’ we’ll keep wandering around in circles looking for an answer to a question that doesn’t need to be asked and maybe can’t meaningfully be asked anyway. As a species we have an ancient tribal tendancy to take sides “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist’ which on the surface may appear to be an argument worth having until somebody notices other possibilities such as “God did exist but committed suicide out of all knowing boredom”. Too scary for both tribes it would appear as are many other ideas. Better we concentrate on questions that matter such as, What is it about our species that’s pushing us towards engineering our own extinction?

 

[buttercup]

if there’s no intelligence behind that evolution, then everything you see, everything in existence: life, creation, the laws of the universe, the order, the beauty, the complexity, everything, ultimately is a result of chance.

How would natural selection affect the 'laws of the universe'?

And why would evolution be the vehicle an intelligence would choose, rather than perfect prototype, for example?

I didn’t claim either of those things. I was responding to someone who brought up natural selection, in response to my claim that if there was no intelligence involved in creation, then at the end of the day, everything is here by chance, or dumb luck.

 

[cnm]

CNM , you believe in "gubermint god", don't ya??????

That which one nation is under, that god?

 

[cnm]

As a species we have an ancient tribal tendancy to take sides “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist’[...]
What is it about our species that’s pushing us towards engineering our own extinction?

The tendency for bloviators to push false dichotomies.

 

[cnm]

I didn’t claim either of those things.

You said 'if there's no intelligence behind evolution', which implies you believe there is intelligence behind evolution. Why then would an intelligence choose the path of natural selection rather than perfect design?

 

[buttercup]

We keep saying "WE DON'T KNOW" but it never penetrates the holy fog.

Oh I heard you loud and clear.

If we accept without question this idea of ‘the universe getting here’ we’ll keep wandering around in circles looking for an answer to a question that doesn’t need to be asked and maybe can’t meaningfully be asked anyway. As a species we have an ancient tribal tendancy to take sides “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist’ which on the surface may appear to be an argument worth having until somebody notices other possibilities such as “God did exist but committed suicide out of all knowing boredom”. Too scary for both tribes it would appear as are many other ideas. Better we concentrate on questions that matter such as, What is it about our species that’s pushing us towards engineering our own extinction?

I respectfully disagree that it’s not an important question. I think it’s one of the most important questions one can ask. The reality is, there are certain things that are out of our control. Truth exists, and it’s not whatever we decide it is. It is what it is. That’s why truth is so important.

As for those other questions, including the one you brought up, those are good questions to ask too. But what one believes about God I think is the most important question of all, because it changes everything about a person’s life, how we live our life, our priorities, our interests, our entire perspective.

 

[Karl Rand]

if there’s no intelligence behind that evolution, then everything you see, everything in existence: life, creation, the laws of the universe, the order, the beauty, the complexity, everything, ultimately is a result of chance.

How would natural selection affect the 'laws of the universe'?

And why would evolution be the vehicle an intelligence would choose, rather than perfect prototype, for example?

One of the central weaknesses in most theologies claiming the existence of an all loving God. Evolution has involved over the aeons uncountable pain and suffering. An all loving God would surely avoid such a long, painful process. Just too awful to imagine a God who would instigate untold suffering for his/her/it’s own amusement? Well maybe, just maybe we are the dumb subjects in a very nasty production? The very notion of a God who would torture his own son to redeem sins he himself knowingly made possible would suggest such an idea isn't all that outrageous. Or to put is more simply, biblical apologetics in all it’s many forms has never solved the puzzle of the existence of evil Here again we run head on into other biblical contradictions. Throughout the Old Testament, God demands, through the prophets, justice for widows, orphans and the stranger. He demands that those who follow him care for the poor and the weak. One stream of the Old Testament idea of justice went far beyond our use of the word today as simply fair dealing under the law. At times it meant caring for the marginalised and defenceless. Yet the same Old Testament is riddled with monstrous cruelties imposed by the tribe of Israel upon others with God’s approval. And still they do.

 

[cnm]

Yet the same Old Testament is riddled with monstrous cruelties imposed by the tribe of Israel upon others with God’s approval. And still they do.

Funny that...

 

[buttercup]

I didn’t claim either of those things.

You said 'if there's no intelligence behind evolution', which implies you believe there is intelligence behind evolution. Why then would an intelligence choose the path of natural selection rather than perfect design?

No, you misunderstood. I believe in creation, not evolution. (At least not the kind of evolution that you guys believe in.) I was simply responding to the guy who brought up natural selection, and the way I phrased that question was for his sake.

 

[Karl Rand]

As a species we have an ancient tribal tendancy to take sides “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist’[...]
What is it about our species that’s pushing us towards engineering our own extinction?

The tendency for bloviators to push false dichotomies.

So deep and perceptive a response is most impressive.

 

[edthecynic]

Now science has PROVEN with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy simply IS.

Well, provided evidence that is the case, which has achieved consensus, until different knowledge comes along.

No, a repeatable experiment means it is PROVEN, and not a consensus.

 

[cnm]

No, a repeatable experiment means it is PROVEN, and not a consensus.

Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. When the evidence is sufficient a consensus is gained that is the best present knowledge, until better knowledge is garnered. Otherwise Newtonian physics would not only be useful but 'proven', whereas relativity and quantum physics 'disprove' them.

 

[Penelope]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

You need a God is all it proves.

 

[Karl Rand]

What is my shaky premise?

That the universe caused by something is "likely true" (arbitrary, you could not possibly know the truth of it). Then you proceed ONLY from the truth of it, assuming it as your first premise. From bad first premises, we can argue anything we like, with perfectly valid logic.

OK, well, make the case that the universe caused itself.

What makes you think the Universe had a beginning?

 

[harmonica]

The universe didn't get here by itself.

That's my proof of God.

that's not proof at all

 

[harmonica]

People are saying all sorts of random things, but you're getting way ahead of me.

All I said is that the universe did not cause itself.

True or untrue?

That's all we're talking about right now.

as stated before--I'll say it again--
it is way beyond the comprehension of humans--so know one knows crap
no one knows if it's true or not
plain and simple