God vs Athiesm: Which Is More Rationale?

[presonorek]

I think indifference is the most logical but guess what? Humans aren't logical. They are going to pick God most of the time. Some of them will pick atheism. Some of the more sophisticated geniuses will pick agnosticism. Due to very successful branding of the god concept we are almost required to pick sides.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I think indifference is the most logical but guess what? Humans aren't logical. They are going to pick God most of the time. Some of them will pick atheism. Some of the more sophisticated geniuses will pick agnosticism. Due to very successful branding of the god concept we are almost required to pick sides.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

 

[presonorek]

I think indifference is the most logical but guess what? Humans aren't logical. They are going to pick God most of the time. Some of them will pick atheism. Some of the more sophisticated geniuses will pick agnosticism. Due to very successful branding of the god concept we are almost required to pick sides.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I think being an agnostic means that you are a coward. Most of them are atheist but are horrified at the thought of being an atheist.

 

[sealybobo]

Is it rational to believe in God?

Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.

A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.

The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.

A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.

Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.

But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.

If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.

There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”

Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a Big Banger.

But is this Big Banger God?

Why couldn’t it be just another universe? Because Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity says that all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. So there’s no time before the Big Bang.

And even if there is time before the Big Bang, even if there is a multi-verse, that is, many universes with many Big Bangs, as String Theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning. An absolute beginning is what most people mean by God.

Yet, some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a Creator. Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

Do you really believe time has a beginning and end? What did God do before? What will God do after the end of time?

So time is eternal and no need for a god

Time is a variable and one of dozens of dimensions. And yes, I think our universe had a beginning, just as most scientists do.

Just assume God tells time like we do. God existed 20 billion years ago even though the universe is less than 14 billion.

It's amazing I have to use an imaginary creature for you to understand this.

Do you understand space exists beyond our seeable universe? There is no wall and no end. There may be a wall but something lies beyond it.

And your point is?

You said our universe when I was talking about time. Maybe if I would have called time God you would have understood.

My point is there is no need for a creator when space and time are eternal, which they are.

Your reply tells me you think our universe is all there is, was and ever will be. It tells me you think small. It's easier for you to think God.

 

[sealybobo]

I think indifference is the most logical but guess what? Humans aren't logical. They are going to pick God most of the time. Some of them will pick atheism. Some of the more sophisticated geniuses will pick agnosticism. Due to very successful branding of the god concept we are almost required to pick sides.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I think indifference is the most logical but guess what? Humans aren't logical. They are going to pick God most of the time. Some of them will pick atheism. Some of the more sophisticated geniuses will pick agnosticism. Due to very successful branding of the god concept we are almost required to pick sides.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Is it rational to believe in God?

Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.

A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.

The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.

A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.

Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.

But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.

If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.

There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”

Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a Big Banger.

But is this Big Banger God?

Why couldn’t it be just another universe? Because Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity says that all time is relative to matter and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. So there’s no time before the Big Bang.

And even if there is time before the Big Bang, even if there is a multi-verse, that is, many universes with many Big Bangs, as String Theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning. An absolute beginning is what most people mean by God.

Yet, some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a Creator. Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

Do you really believe time has a beginning and end? What did God do before? What will God do after the end of time?

So time is eternal and no need for a god

Time is a variable and one of dozens of dimensions. And yes, I think our universe had a beginning, just as most scientists do.

Just assume God tells time like we do. God existed 20 billion years ago even though the universe is less than 14 billion.

It's amazing I have to use an imaginary creature for you to understand this.

Do you understand space exists beyond our seeable universe? There is no wall and no end. There may be a wall but something lies beyond it.

And your point is?

You said our universe when I was talking about time. Maybe if I would have called time God you would have understood.

My point is there is no need for a creator when space and time are eternal, which they are.

Your reply tells me you think our universe is all there is, was and ever will be. It tells me you think small. It's easier for you to think God.

The creator of time and space is God.
Touché.

 

[sealybobo]

I think indifference is the most logical but guess what? Humans aren't logical. They are going to pick God most of the time. Some of them will pick atheism. Some of the more sophisticated geniuses will pick agnosticism. Due to very successful branding of the god concept we are almost required to pick sides.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I think indifference is the most logical but guess what? Humans aren't logical. They are going to pick God most of the time. Some of them will pick atheism. Some of the more sophisticated geniuses will pick agnosticism. Due to very successful branding of the god concept we are almost required to pick sides.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

When did Athiesm start including a Supreme Being? They don't, and every athiest claims they are 100% right.

 

[sealybobo]

Do you really believe time has a beginning and end? What did God do before? What will God do after the end of time?

So time is eternal and no need for a god

Time is a variable and one of dozens of dimensions. And yes, I think our universe had a beginning, just as most scientists do.

Just assume God tells time like we do. God existed 20 billion years ago even though the universe is less than 14 billion.

It's amazing I have to use an imaginary creature for you to understand this.

Do you understand space exists beyond our seeable universe? There is no wall and no end. There may be a wall but something lies beyond it.

And your point is?

You said our universe when I was talking about time. Maybe if I would have called time God you would have understood.

My point is there is no need for a creator when space and time are eternal, which they are.

Your reply tells me you think our universe is all there is, was and ever will be. It tells me you think small. It's easier for you to think God.

The creator of time and space is God.
Touché.

But that's ridiculous. If God existed in a time before time that means time always existed.

So there's no need for a God. Time is eternal.

 

[sealybobo]

I think indifference is the most logical but guess what? Humans aren't logical. They are going to pick God most of the time. Some of them will pick atheism. Some of the more sophisticated geniuses will pick agnosticism. Due to very successful branding of the god concept we are almost required to pick sides.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

When did Athiesm start including a Supreme Being? They don't, and every athiest claims they are 100% right.

Find them here on usmb. Name names

 

[presonorek]

I think indifference is the most logical but guess what? Humans aren't logical. They are going to pick God most of the time. Some of them will pick atheism. Some of the more sophisticated geniuses will pick agnosticism. Due to very successful branding of the god concept we are almost required to pick sides.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

When did Athiesm start including a Supreme Being? They don't, and every athiest claims they are 100% right.

Sealbobo is right. Just show us a few of the USMB users that are atheist and claim they are 100% right. It would be worth seeing some of their quotes.

 

[sealybobo]

I think indifference is the most logical but guess what? Humans aren't logical. They are going to pick God most of the time. Some of them will pick atheism. Some of the more sophisticated geniuses will pick agnosticism. Due to very successful branding of the god concept we are almost required to pick sides.

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

When did Athiesm start including a Supreme Being? They don't, and every athiest claims they are 100% right.

Im pretty sure God didn't really talk to Joseph Smith or Mohammad. Can we at least agree those 100% didn't happen? Or are you agnostic about Islam?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

When did Athiesm start including a Supreme Being? They don't, and every athiest claims they are 100% right.

Im pretty sure God didn't really talk to Joseph Smith or Mohammad. Can we at least agree those 100% didn't happen? Or are you agnostic about Islam?

One simply needs to observe the fruits (or lack of) of those religions to see they are false and intended to fool the masses away from the one true God.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

When did Athiesm start including a Supreme Being? They don't, and every athiest claims they are 100% right.

Sealbobo is right. Just show us a few of the USMB users that are atheist and claim they are 100% right. It would be worth seeing some of their quotes.

Show me when who is not 100% certain.

 

[sealybobo]

Agnostic is derived from the word ignorant.

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

When did Athiesm start including a Supreme Being? They don't, and every athiest claims they are 100% right.

Sealbobo is right. Just show us a few of the USMB users that are atheist and claim they are 100% right. It would be worth seeing some of their quotes.

I call myself an atheist for a few reasons.

1. It's the opposite of theism. They claim to know when they don't so we claim to know they wrong.

2. Talking about moses, jesus, Mary, Noah, Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. We know these are not real and can't believe so many others don't.
3. Agnostics are weak. They don't want to hurt feelings but ultimately they aren't buying any of the organized religions either. But as for a generic creator? Who knows.

 

[sealybobo]

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

When did Athiesm start including a Supreme Being? They don't, and every athiest claims they are 100% right.

Im pretty sure God didn't really talk to Joseph Smith or Mohammad. Can we at least agree those 100% didn't happen? Or are you agnostic about Islam?

One simply needs to observe the fruits (or lack of) of those religions to see they are false and intended to fool the masses away from the one true God.

So you're an atheist too. You don't believe the other 999 religions either.

They all think they are the one true religion too.

 

[sealybobo]

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

When did Athiesm start including a Supreme Being? They don't, and every athiest claims they are 100% right.

Sealbobo is right. Just show us a few of the USMB users that are atheist and claim they are 100% right. It would be worth seeing some of their quotes.

Show me when who is not 100% certain.

Do you believe in ghosts?

 

[presonorek]

So you're an atheist too. You don't believe the other 999 religions either.

They all think they are the one true religion too.

I'm a weird kind of atheist. I think religion is powerful and beneficial. I think Christianity and Mormonism are the two best religions on the planet in that order. Excluding Hinduism all religions seem to utilize Jesus in their teachings. As a Christian this says a lot. As an atheist this says a whole lot more. Christianity has a phenomenal philosophical system. Mormonism has an unimpressive philosophy (Machiavellian) but it has more functionality as an organization. Mormonism and individual Mormons have more discipline than Christianity and Christians but more flexibility too. Joseph Smith wasn't a dummy.

 

[sealybobo]

I lean towards disbelief but one would have to be a God to know fore sure so agnostic atheist is the most logical position.

Even atheists admit they don't know.

But theists claim to know how we got here and what happens when we die. Is anybody buying that?

That's why they call it faith.
And I've never met an athiest who claims they are not 100% certain. Part of their delusional trait.
And theists go by what we have been told in our origins. And in the 1960's science went from the universe always existed to the universe had a beginning. Just like theists were told.

Athiests who say they are 100% certain are referring to the Abraham God. I'm pretty certain that's a man made up story too.

When did Athiesm start including a Supreme Being? They don't, and every athiest claims they are 100% right.

Sealbobo is right. Just show us a few of the USMB users that are atheist and claim they are 100% right. It would be worth seeing some of their quotes.

Show me when who is not 100% certain.

Here's the two arguments we aren't accepting.

1. There must be a God. Not true
2. God visited. Not buying it.

Science has explained how there might be infinite time and space beyond our universe.

Funny when you put time and space in a box you put God in the box too. Who's the God occupying the time and space outside your box? Am I wrong? If God existed for all time time has too.