If God doesn't exist...

[cnm]

Prove that you and the rest of the universe are anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on to play more than a nanosecond ago.

Prove that it isn't.

But you're not talking science. Science does evidence, not proof, and there's enough evidence for scientists to have a consensus that the universe is some billions of years old. There's no evidence I'm aware of that the universe began just before you typed your post.

 

[cnm]

But, hey, if you want to believe that your ancestors were invertebrate water breathers, more power to you, even though there is no real evidence to support your claims.

There is overwhelming evidence for that claim according to all scientists but a few batshit crazies. I'll go with the side that is in the vast majority, not with the few batshit crazies.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen? You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red). No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made. No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

1st--when did I say those things? i don't think I claimed anything by way of science beside the fact that it can disprove Genesis by observation.

We can see the things described in Genesis do not exist or are not what is described. That is proof that Genesis does not come from some all knowing God.

You're the one so certain of yourself... Now you're saying that you haven't seen these things take place and you have the arrogant presumption to criticize other cultures about their beliefs?

You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen? You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red).

I think you are setting yourself up for another fail here. Do you remember how I described science?

I doubt it.

Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

It may be but you apparently aren't. (NOTE: You need to click on the next section to see the answers I've provided to the rest of what you have to say...)

Let us attack: You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?

I simply asked a question which you've now failed to answer.

1)Humility: The Big Bang is a working theory. If it is demonstrably false, science will admit its mistake and try to come up with a different theory.

That's convenient... So next time instead of basing your theory on the dominant monotheist creation myth will you use the Hindu recurring cycle theology or something else next time?

2)Clumsy: The Big Bang theory is a mixture of an accidental observation and theology. Science basically 'tripped' over it and got some help from a astronomer/theologian(The same one who came up with the basic idea for the Big Bang theory!)[/QUOTE}

So he was not only a astronomer but a theologian as well... Hm.m..m....

3)woefully inquisitive:The majority of 'observations' made to support anyone of the Bang Theories(there are numerous competing versions by the way) is due to questioning what should happen if the Universe did start from an explosion. Thus scientist go out to find these traces or evidence for there theories to see if it is present or not. Again humility plays here

Like the humility of accepting that a religion came up with a creation theory first?

Note--You do not need to see with your eyes to prove an event occurred.

You do not need to believe if you can demonstrate a claim is false.

For instance: How does the forensic expert prove which bullet comes from which gun if they did not see any guns fired? This is a key question that pops up in murder cases. If the forensics specialists does not see it, how does he prove which gun? He does not see it, but he is able to prove which gun!

And yet you demand that exact thing from religious beliefs.

No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made.

I am sure the above is another fail.

I doubt this too.

Science is not theology.

One man's science is another man's theology.

Science job is to help describe our reality, the physical world, around us. Theology is to discipline its followers in a set of behavior, to teach morals. All of which is necessary to promote our self worth, associations with others and to form just judgements--plus a lot more.

So now we're pigeon holing what religion can and can not do? Many religions have been used to describe the world around us. Who are you to tell them what they can and can not do?

Science can not teach morals. Theology is horrible when it comes to describing reality and does not need to.. However both are practical and has value to man.

I may agree with you on this... to a point.

No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.

Yes, philosophers and scientist can admit they are wrong. Science is humble, remember?

You didn't list any leaders of a religion. Can theologians admit their beliefs are wrong? No--that is blasphemy. Religions are arrogant, remember?

I believe Kepler and Aristotle could be considered theologians in their own right... And Einstein did make a few comments about God...... You were saying something about arrogant?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Prove that you and the rest of the universe are anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on to play more than a nanosecond ago.

Prove that it isn't.

But you're not talking science. Science does evidence, not proof, and there's enough evidence for scientists to have a consensus that the universe is some billions of years old. There's no evidence I'm aware of that the universe began just before you typed your post.

I'll remember that next time I'm taking a theoretical physics class.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

On the other hand,
Genesis describes a reality that is demonstrably false. So the creation myth of Genesis is false.


For instance, the firmament is what exactly?

The stars in the sky are what, according to the Genesis?

Genesis talks of the splitting of two great bodies of water. One formed the oceans and the seas, the other is where?

So it does not matter how old a story is. If it is false, then it is false. Age is not an indicator of how true a claim is.

Perhaps the firmament is the unexplainable religious fulcrum that was used to by the unexplainable scientific lever that started the universe out in both the religious and scientific creation theologies.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[LittleNipper]

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed (... Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[amrchaos]

You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen? You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red). No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made. No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.

*****CHUCKLE*****

1st--when did I say those things? i don't think I claimed anything by way of science beside the fact that it can disprove Genesis by observation.

We can see the things described in Genesis do not exist or are not what is described. That is proof that Genesis does not come from some all knowing God.

You're the one so certain of yourself... Now you're saying that you haven't seen these things take place and you have the arrogant presumption to criticize other cultures about their beliefs?

You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen? You've seen evolution actually take place? You know what goes on at the subatomic levels because you've observed them first hand at those levels? If not it seems somewhat arrogant on you part to assume that your beliefs are fact just because you have a theory/theology that says these things occur(red).

I think you are setting yourself up for another fail here. Do you remember how I described science?

I doubt it.

Science is humble, clumsy, and woefully inquisitive.

It may be but you apparently aren't. (NOTE: You need to click on the next section to see the answers I've provided to the rest of what you have to say...)

Let us attack: You can verify that the Big Bang occurred because you watched it happen?

I simply asked a question which you've now failed to answer.

1)Humility: The Big Bang is a working theory. If it is demonstrably false, science will admit its mistake and try to come up with a different theory.

That's convenient... So next time instead of basing your theory on the dominant monotheist creation myth will you use the Hindu recurring cycle theology or something else next time?

2)Clumsy: The Big Bang theory is a mixture of an accidental observation and theology. Science basically 'tripped' over it and got some help from a astronomer/theologian(The same one who came up with the basic idea for the Big Bang theory!)[/QUOTE}

So he was not only a astronomer but a theologian as well... Hm.m..m....

3)woefully inquisitive:The majority of 'observations' made to support anyone of the Bang Theories(there are numerous competing versions by the way) is due to questioning what should happen if the Universe did start from an explosion. Thus scientist go out to find these traces or evidence for there theories to see if it is present or not. Again humility plays here

Like the humility of accepting that a religion came up with a creation theory first?

Note--You do not need to see with your eyes to prove an event occurred.

You do not need to believe if you can demonstrate a claim is false.

For instance: How does the forensic expert prove which bullet comes from which gun if they did not see any guns fired? This is a key question that pops up in murder cases. If the forensics specialists does not see it, how does he prove which gun? He does not see it, but he is able to prove which gun!

And yet you demand that exact thing from religious beliefs.

No you have nothing more than a theology based on tentative information and mathematics that appear to fit the circumstances at this time. This in itself suggests that your beliefs are only as good as your being able to fit your models to the observations. Much like other theologies have fit their beliefs into the observations they've made.

I am sure the above is another fail.

I doubt this too.

Science is not theology.

One man's science is another man's theology.

Science job is to help describe our reality, the physical world, around us. Theology is to discipline its followers in a set of behavior, to teach morals. All of which is necessary to promote our self worth, associations with others and to form just judgements--plus a lot more.

So now we're pigeon holing what religion can and can not do? Many religions have been used to describe the world around us. Who are you to tell them what they can and can not do?

Science can not teach morals. Theology is horrible when it comes to describing reality and does not need to.. However both are practical and has value to man.

I may agree with you on this... to a point.

No one's perfect whether they're a theologian or scientist they both can be wrong. Even Aristotle, Kepler, Faraday, or Einstein could tell you that.

Yes, philosophers and scientist can admit they are wrong. Science is humble, remember?

You didn't list any leaders of a religion. Can theologians admit their beliefs are wrong? No--that is blasphemy. Religions are arrogant, remember?

I believe Kepler and Aristotle could be considered theologians in their own right... And Einstein did make a few comments about God...... You were saying something about arrogant?

*****CHUCKLE*****

You're the one so certain of yourself... Now you're saying that you haven't seen these things take place and you have the arrogant presumption to criticize other cultures about their beliefs?

I'm not the one that brought up the Big Bang or Evolution and claimed they were true or false in science. You presumed I did and then asked if I saw these things occur. I explained to you how science approached these theories.

Not my fault you do not understand what science is, as was evident in your follow up. You called it a religion when it does not have the characteristics or properties to be a religion. Science does not teach discipline in behavior. Science does not teach how to deal with others or how to value oneself. Science does not teach how to apply science for the betterment of society. Religion does, not science.

You did set yourself for a fail(presuming answers I didn't give. Assuming you can't prove things you can't see) and totally failed in the follow up (assuming I practice science as a religion. When the truth is you use religion to explain your science. ) That can be seen as projection on your part. You really failed twice.

Also, anyone can give a critique of their or another culture. However, I am not too sure which culture you are referring to.

Perhaps the firmament is the unexplainable religious fulcrum that was used to by the unexplainable scientific lever that started the universe out in both the religious and scientific creation theologies.

You start with perhaps, so I think this is an assumption on your part.
But what you say next makes little sense and is not what is described in Genesis

The firmament is a PHYSICAL barrier that separates the waters of the Earth from the waters of the Sky. The stars are fixed lights in the firmament. There is no need to hand wave or assume, it is described in Genesis and it doe not exist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?

Probably the same thing that gives you the ability to discern that there's such a thing as God.

 

[Muhammed]

It's called the big bang theory. Keyword is theory. Can not be proven, can never be proven. It can only be disproven.

It could be proven if it had any basis in reality.

 

[amrchaos]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.

Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe. It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Science neither holds the answers to all questions nor does it claim to...Science can only address observable phenomena and hypothesize as to what is going on then try to show through observable repeatable experiments that the particular hypothesis is correct...we do not have observable phenomena pre Big Bang so Science does not address that pre physics period ...
I think of God as OSOTU or the Operating system of the Universe...some call it the Tao ...I call it Tetra short from Tetragramaton or the "Four sounds of God"...this entity is beyond my ken I will tell you that right off the bat ...I mean its making zigagazookatrillion calculation a pentasecond yet it takes time to chill with me and keep me keeping on....My guess is that pre Big bang everything and Nothing was one thing then this one thing went fractal for reasons unknown and created a word of dualities where once all had been one ....its been a long strange trip fr sure.....

 

[hortysir]

"If God doesn't exist..."

There is no 'if' – 'god' does not exist as perceived by theists.

om·nis·cient
ämˈniSHənt/
adjective
adjective: omniscient
knowing everything.

 

[hortysir]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Science does not hold the answer to all questions. Science is a method, not a depository. 200 years ago "science" didn't know how the sun worked. That didn't mean it was a god just because science didn't have the answer.

"Science" is supposed to be repeatable, also.

Darwin knew nothing about DNA, either.
Do you think if he had an electron microscope, and could see a DNA helix, he would have have tried to pass off his rotten bag of goods called 'evolution'?

 

[IsaacNewton]

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

The point about language is a good one.

If you tell people there was nothing before the big bang they assume 'you mean a vacuum of empty space'. And no it means there was not even empty space. There was literally nothing. It is very hard for the human mind to grasp such a concept.

There are many things we don't know yet, but one can't then argue 'the god of the gaps' in our knowledge. Meaning many people will assert 'well if we don't know then that mean it was god'. No, it means we don't know yet, just as we didn't know what caused disease 300 years ago.

We do know the universe is 13.7 billion years old and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

To believe in any god, you have to believe it was all put in motion and allowed to continue on for 13.7 billion years to wait specifically for humans to arrive or be placed on the scene. And all those other galaxies, stars, and planets billions of light years away are just stage dressing so 13.7 billion years later we'd have something to look at.

That is quite a leap.

An artist doesn't evolve a masterpiece. And likewise the Creator created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th in order to illustrate to Adam exactly how he should spend his existence. The entire Universe illustrates the eternality of GOD, His power, and majesty. It is the limited minds of humans who must extrapolate that the Universe took billions of years to form when the Universe only represents a glimpse of eternity that can be just as likely to have been DESIGNED/CREATED a few thousand years ago..

Did your god create physics? Because the law of physics says it is 13.7 billion years. Science doesn't create something, it merely reveals what reality is.

And that's the great thing about religious books, people read them and then insert their own imagination so that the words can mean absolutely anything. The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Mohammed, Jesus...pick one.They are the expression of human beings who were terrified of the real world because it liked to kill them, so they created supernatural beings who had to be 'the god of the volcano' or the 'god of the corn' or the 'god of the forest'. Its a mental way to try to have some control over nature and over all those things in nature that man didn't understand like floods, volcanoes, lightning, comets, eclipses...

Only we DO understand all these things now, thanks to understanding physics. And biology, geography, oceanography, plate tectonics, evolution, introns, exons, mutation rates, calculus.

The gods Mythra, Zeus, Thor, Vishnu ------ were super humans and are in fact the creation of man who imagined that gods were like humans only exalted. Mohammed and Jesus are historical men. They actually existed. Mohammed never claimed to be divine but a prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah (Before Abraham was I AM). GOD is the author of nature and physics; however, HE is not subject to what HE created and designed And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, (Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?) ------ we are & Satan is. 13.7 Billion years is but a human interpretation of existing evidence, and as such is neither absolute nor perfect. Science is but a tool which can be subject to abuse.

So you decide which 'gods' are the creation of man and which aren't. What evidence is there that any human in history was more than human?

You simply believe in one more god than atheists do out of the 4,000 or so currently identified by humans.

What gives anyone the ability to discern that all the other 3,999 are false?

They are all the creation of man. All.

What gives you the ability to discern that there's no such thing as God at all?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I'm an agnostic and a scientist, I don't say 100% that I know. But 99.999% yes, there is are no 'gods'. Rather odd that each person says 'no god', singular, referring of course to their own 'god'.

You of course cannot prove there is no Zeus or Mithra or the Spaghetti Monster. But that is exactly what theists do, they 'claim' to know there is only one 'god' and their 'god' is the only true 'god'.

 

[frigidweirdo]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.

Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe. It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.

Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe. It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.

So, you say God is what made the universe, but you don't know what made the universe. So God is everything you don't know?

 

[amrchaos]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.

Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe. It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

We don't actually know what started the universe, we can only speculate. So, saying it's God simply because you don't know isn't very smart.

If you define "what started the universe" as God, is that not OK?
Now the problem becomes what other traits does this God has, if any are discernible.

Warning:God as defined may not be anthropomorphic nor contributed any more than the theoretical start of the Universe. It does not take much to realize this may not be the God of Genesis.

So, you say God is what made the universe, but you don't know what made the universe. So God is everything you don't know?

More like
I don't know what started the universe.
I assumed it has a start(the hypothesis)
I decided to call the thing which started the universe God.

I could have given it another name, like the Big Bang, the Appearing Tide, The first Dawn,etc..

It is nothing but a label for a definition.

By the way, there is a lot of things I don't know. I would find it confusing if I labeed each and everything I don't know 'God'. Until I come up with a clear definition of what I assume it is and give it a unique label, why not just call it "something I don't know".

 

[amrchaos]

You want to hear something strange.

We could go to the very very beginning of Genesis and define God as that which created light.
.
Then the problem becomes proving every other trait the Book attributess to God is the same thing that created light. We never have to talk about what created the Universe because Genesis never claimed God created the Universe!