Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Czernobog]

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

You have been trying to demonstrate the nature of God, based on "His Creation". Unfortunately, we have not even gotten to the existence of God, let alone established that he, in fact, created the universe.

Are you under the illusion that you can prove the existence of a supernatural being in the natural world? The best we can do is study the natural world and examine it for indirect evidence of a Creator. You have no interest in that because it opposes your worldview. It threatens you.

No, I am under the impression that claiming the existence of a "supernatural" being is unsupportable by evidence. If you want to believe that such beings exist, that is your perogative. However, please do not insult my intelligence by trying to suggest that such can be proven by objective evidence.

 

[RWS]

Christians, Jews, Muslims, they all need to realize that they are not original in their holy books. They were copied from and changed from more ancient texts that spoke about totally different things. Each one of those religions claim that they are superior, and 100% right. Yet, their factual basis is a book(s).

A book that was plagiarized from far more ancient Mesopotamian texts, and each of these religions claim that their version was an original writing straight from the mouth of God!

And they all want to kill each other over it, because each one thinks they're better than everyone else, and people who think differently should not be allowed...

OMG, what a farce!!!

What lunacy!!!

You would think that after so much time that rational thinking would take over and we could all live peacefully. But apparently, we can't. Because you all want to kill each other over your imaginary gods and made-up books.

And the reason that you think so, is that you were brainwashed from birth. None of you has studied the world and its history and science, and then came to the conclusion that Judaism or Christianity or Islam was the only way to go, and then chose to believe in that religion as the superior one. You just believe it because you were born into it, brainwashed from birth, and that is all you will ever accept or consider!!!

You're all a big part of the problem in this world, due to your ignorance and fanatical beliefs.

You religious fanatics are honestly... disgusting... to me in your words and actions.

Open your minds, and realize that you can have your faith that makes you feel good, while still accepting the reality that you should work with others to reach a mutual benefit for humanity and the world. Not hate and/or kill each other based on a possible lie you were born into...

There's still hope for you. Read things, and try stepping outside the box. While keeping your faiths, explore what's important for this world.

Do you write all of your paragraphs in sentence form?

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

Do you also have a problem with the way I write?

So you don't like the way I think, or write? Wow...

Again, you provided a reflex link that was not properly thought out or researched, that contradicts what you say about your religion. Just stuff you link from a random list when provided with an argument you cannot respond to... This is what, 4 or 5 times so far, just with me??

The Old Testament was written approximately 3500 years ago. So your Babylonian date of 4500 years ago (and they took it from the Sumerians, so it is older still) is still 1000 years older than the biblical texts. And the Enuma Elish 4500 years ago, tells a vastly different story about our "gods" than the OT 3500 years ago, and was changed to suit the monotheist Jewish religion that started 1000 years later.

The OT was a copy of older texts. Including the Enuma Elish, and others such as Atrahasis and The Epic of Gilgamesh. Written long before the OT.

The NT is also plagiarism of many older stories:

Your writing is Ok. Look this is pretty simple, if you don't want to believe in God don't. I don't have a horse in the game. I don't get commissions. If you don't want to accept the reality that the account of Genesis was written as symbols in the Chinese language 4500 years ago or that they describe the great migration of people or that they worshiped the God of Abraham, I'm cool with that too. It doesn't change the fact that the Bible correctly tells the account of the great migration. Even if you didn't understand that was what it was doing.

Migration of what?

Domination and slavery?

It's also cool if you refuse the origin of your religion, and just accept what you were taught when you were born.

Until you're 10 years old at the latest...

And then you have to start questioning stuff... And at your advanced age, you haven't started questioning yet. Why? Are you that deep in the shit?

 

[RWS]

Have you ever doubted anything about your religion?

Did anything ever seem kinda fishy?

And if so, have you researched why?

 

[Mudda]

No you don't but you are the first theist to bore me. LOL. Usually the theist stops but you have forced me to lose interest and give up. Mission accomplished I bet huh god believer?

What reason do you have for yours?

Taking a quick break

That's weak. You have nothing. It is a good thing you didn't try to play it like you did.

So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

But you don't know who or how the universe was created, and you never proved shit. Saying that the universe is proof of a god just doesn't make sense, it's proof of something, just what has not been proven.

 

[Mudda]

Taking a quick break

That's weak. You have nothing. It is a good thing you didn't try to play it like you did.

So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

What proof is there that the universe was created by the god of the bible? Anything at all?

 

[Mudda]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Are theists able to use rational thought, use deductive reasoning, and yadda yadda? Ban The teaching of Evolution to condemning Galileo's teachings as heretical? So are we going somewhere here? Religion burns people to death and crashes planes into buildings, so if there IS a more rational way of thought and behavior, it isn't religious. And religion isn't in any way in a position to point out who's who among the irrational given what they have done and are doing now.

Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread. Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism. They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

There's is an affirmative argument for agnosticism, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.

 

[Mudda]

Are theists able to use rational thought, use deductive reasoning, and yadda yadda? Ban The teaching of Evolution to condemning Galileo's teachings as heretical? So are we going somewhere here? Religion burns people to death and crashes planes into buildings, so if there IS a more rational way of thought and behavior, it isn't religious. And religion isn't in any way in a position to point out who's who among the irrational given what they have done and are doing now.

Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread. Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism. They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

But how do you get to the god of the bible?

 

[Mudda]

So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?

We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.

What is it about the BB that proves that intelligent being were predestined to come into being? Or did you make that up?
Also how does matter evolve? An atom of gold turns into something else?

 

[ding]

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread. Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism. They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

 

[ding]

Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread. Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism. They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence. All tangible items can be used as evidence. This the part we are going around in circles over. You can't seem to differentiate between evidence and what evidence means or tells us or implies.

 

[ding]

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

You have been trying to demonstrate the nature of God, based on "His Creation". Unfortunately, we have not even gotten to the existence of God, let alone established that he, in fact, created the universe.

And is it your contention that science can do those things? I am afraid that the best we can do is to study what was created and evaluate that as indirect evidence for a Creator. You keep demanding definitive proof of the supernatural where there can never be any. Of the two positions, mine is the more reasonable. I don't demand the impossible, you do.

 

[ding]

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?

We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.

We don't know all of these things. For instance, "We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created." We know no such thing. Simply because Homo Sapiens did evolve, in no way indicates that thery were predestined to evolve. You are stating a conclusion for which there is no evidence. Several of your conclusions are being stated without evidence.

The potential for everything which is possible and has come to pass was controlled by the laws of nature. You can either believe that or you can believe in a special creative act of God. The reality is that we do live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise.

 

[ding]

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

I think the question is whether there is a possibility of coming to a valid conclusion on the existence of god by using the tools of science.

It's NOT whether you can study stuff. Anyone can do that.

The point I'd like to make is that science is never going to answer the question of whether god exists regardless of how much you study.

The problem is that the tool wasn't designed for that purpose.

I agree. We can not directly prove the supernatural through the natural. Which begs the question, why do people keep demanding that we do? That seems illogical at best and disingenuous at worst. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already. That is a decision each person must make for himself. I am trying to prove that there is evidence that can be used to inform that decision. How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

 

[ding]

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

You can, but any conclusions that you arrive at are faulty, and incapable of being supported by evidence.

Wow, did you just really write that? I guess your mind is made up. Why do you keep asking for evidence then? After all you just admitted that you prejudge any conclusions arrived at as faulty, and incapable of being supported by evidence. Why do you keep asking for it? Are you illogical? Or disingenuous?

You have shown yourself to be incapable of honest dialogue when you argued that the universe did not have a beginning, even though all of the evidence at hand shows the universe started from an extremely tiny hot dense space and expanded and cooled, not to mention your dismissal of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which precludes an eternal universe from what we observe today.

 

[ding]

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?

We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.

What is it about the BB that proves that intelligent being were predestined to come into being? Or did you make that up?
Also how does matter evolve? An atom of gold turns into something else?

1. Cosmic evolution
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Evolution of life
5. Evolution of consciousness

All potentialities at the moment space and time were created. All controlled by natural laws.

 

[ding]

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

You have been trying to demonstrate the nature of God, based on "His Creation". Unfortunately, we have not even gotten to the existence of God, let alone established that he, in fact, created the universe.

Are you under the illusion that you can prove the existence of a supernatural being in the natural world? The best we can do is study the natural world and examine it for indirect evidence of a Creator. You have no interest in that because it opposes your worldview. It threatens you.

No, I am under the impression that claiming the existence of a "supernatural" being is unsupportable by evidence. If you want to believe that such beings exist, that is your perogative. However, please do not insult my intelligence by trying to suggest that such can be proven by objective evidence.

I'm not doing that though. Right now I am just trying to prove that there is indirect physical evidence for a Creator. When are you going to stop demanding proof that you know is impossible to provide?

 

[ding]

Christians, Jews, Muslims, they all need to realize that they are not original in their holy books. They were copied from and changed from more ancient texts that spoke about totally different things. Each one of those religions claim that they are superior, and 100% right. Yet, their factual basis is a book(s).

A book that was plagiarized from far more ancient Mesopotamian texts, and each of these religions claim that their version was an original writing straight from the mouth of God!

And they all want to kill each other over it, because each one thinks they're better than everyone else, and people who think differently should not be allowed...

OMG, what a farce!!!

What lunacy!!!

You would think that after so much time that rational thinking would take over and we could all live peacefully. But apparently, we can't. Because you all want to kill each other over your imaginary gods and made-up books.

And the reason that you think so, is that you were brainwashed from birth. None of you has studied the world and its history and science, and then came to the conclusion that Judaism or Christianity or Islam was the only way to go, and then chose to believe in that religion as the superior one. You just believe it because you were born into it, brainwashed from birth, and that is all you will ever accept or consider!!!

You're all a big part of the problem in this world, due to your ignorance and fanatical beliefs.

You religious fanatics are honestly... disgusting... to me in your words and actions.

Open your minds, and realize that you can have your faith that makes you feel good, while still accepting the reality that you should work with others to reach a mutual benefit for humanity and the world. Not hate and/or kill each other based on a possible lie you were born into...

There's still hope for you. Read things, and try stepping outside the box. While keeping your faiths, explore what's important for this world.

Do you write all of your paragraphs in sentence form?

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

Do you also have a problem with the way I write?

So you don't like the way I think, or write? Wow...

Again, you provided a reflex link that was not properly thought out or researched, that contradicts what you say about your religion. Just stuff you link from a random list when provided with an argument you cannot respond to... This is what, 4 or 5 times so far, just with me??

The Old Testament was written approximately 3500 years ago. So your Babylonian date of 4500 years ago (and they took it from the Sumerians, so it is older still) is still 1000 years older than the biblical texts. And the Enuma Elish 4500 years ago, tells a vastly different story about our "gods" than the OT 3500 years ago, and was changed to suit the monotheist Jewish religion that started 1000 years later.

The OT was a copy of older texts. Including the Enuma Elish, and others such as Atrahasis and The Epic of Gilgamesh. Written long before the OT.

The NT is also plagiarism of many older stories:

Your writing is Ok. Look this is pretty simple, if you don't want to believe in God don't. I don't have a horse in the game. I don't get commissions. If you don't want to accept the reality that the account of Genesis was written as symbols in the Chinese language 4500 years ago or that they describe the great migration of people or that they worshiped the God of Abraham, I'm cool with that too. It doesn't change the fact that the Bible correctly tells the account of the great migration. Even if you didn't understand that was what it was doing.

Migration of what?

Domination and slavery?

It's also cool if you refuse the origin of your religion, and just accept what you were taught when you were born.

Until you're 10 years old at the latest...

And then you have to start questioning stuff... And at your advanced age, you haven't started questioning yet. Why? Are you that deep in the shit?

Migration of mankind from a central location.

 

[Mudda]

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?

We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.

What is it about the BB that proves that intelligent being were predestined to come into being? Or did you make that up?
Also how does matter evolve? An atom of gold turns into something else?

1. Cosmic evolution
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Evolution of life
5. Evolution of consciousness

All potentialities at the moment space and time were created. All controlled by natural laws.

First of all, the Catholic religion doesn't believe in evolution. But mainly, saying that intelligent beings were predestined from the BB to exist, is like you're looking at the end of a football season and saying that this season was predestined to have team x win, after you know they've won. It's not logical.
And again, how does matter evolve? One atom turns into something else over time?

 

[ding]

But you don't know who or how the universe was created, and you never proved shit. Saying that the universe is proof of a god just doesn't make sense, it's proof of something, just what has not been proven.

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

What proof is there that the universe was created by the god of the bible? Anything at all?

It is the only revealed religion. The allegorical account of Creation. The account of the Great Migration. etc.,

There's is an affirmative argument for agnosticism, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.

You are not agnostic. If you were you would be arguing equally the other side. You don't do that. You have a horse in the race.

But how do you get to the god of the bible?

After an extensive study of the major religions.

 

[ding]

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?

We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.

What is it about the BB that proves that intelligent being were predestined to come into being? Or did you make that up?
Also how does matter evolve? An atom of gold turns into something else?

1. Cosmic evolution
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Evolution of life
5. Evolution of consciousness

All potentialities at the moment space and time were created. All controlled by natural laws.

First of all, the Catholic religion doesn't believe in evolution. But mainly, saying that intelligent beings were predestined from the BB to exist, is like you're looking at the end of a football season and saying that this season was predestined to have team x win, after you know they've won. It's not logical.
And again, how does matter evolve? One atom turns into something else over time?

https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter. For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.

The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).

These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.

However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. By evolving from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen and helium - the first two elements - matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state during its cosmic evolutionary phase. Then during the stellar evolutionary phase, matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state when the development of complex stars evolved from the chaotic first elements. Non-living matter reached its potential during the chemical evolutionary phase when all chemical elements evolved from the original two elements from supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies. This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. Again this process followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements that we see today. Like non-living matter, life followed this pattern as well.

One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage.