This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[Grumblenuts]

I think we'll always need scientists regardless. But the premise that "physicists don't {yet} understand how all these things work" clearly indicates they've been barking up the wrong tree while wasting a lot of time and money.

No it doesn't. What an absurd thing to say. Now i rightfully question your motives for saying such an absurd thing. Lemme guess: you have a fantastic "theory" for which you have zero evidence or research, and which has been ignored by the scientific community.

Nailed it, i bet.

No, you're just embarrassing yourself, but that comes as no real surprise. {"How" was your word.. Do you even remember what you started off arguing?} You don't have to respond at all to my opinions any more than I need respond to yours. But if you really must, at least make some attempt to rebut the alternative scientific explanations I share instead of just clutching your pearls and slinging mud.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Seems like exactly the sort of question any decent, upstanding theory should be able to answer

Theories don't answer "why". They answer "how".

Just read through this snooty BS:

Science does not ask “Why?”

Because it can only answer “What?” and “How?”

medium.com

Again, "science" is just a word. Words obviously don't "do" anything in isolation. Pompous assholes like that unfortunate student's professor there and Feynman are typical of those who teach because they've grown so drunk with their own authority they can no longer do anything of practical use other than perhaps splitting hairs while blowing gas.

Teachers also do research. What is causing you to say so many stupid ******* things? Sober up.

None of that follows, but I get that you angrily disagree. Defending the establishment's current version of physics has never been my problem. Yours always, I know. And I certainly have nothing against scientists or teachers in general. Aaron Murakami has related experiencing many of the same visceral reactions I've had while being told to ingest much of this same bullshit still widely being peddled in schools and on the net today in the name of "physics". You've always seemed fine with it. Not me. Get used to it.

 

[ding]

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

Nothing except some magical being living in the sky.

What makes more sense, nothing deciding to create everything, or God creating everything?

"God" is just your substitute for "nothing". You want a nothing that cares where you put your peepee, because you think you are a special, unique boy and can maybe live forever.

Logically, the first cause must be eternal and unchanging. That rules out matter and energy.

 

[ding]

I think we'll always need scientists regardless. But the premise that "physicists don't {yet} understand how all these things work" clearly indicates they've been barking up the wrong tree while wasting a lot of time and money.

No it doesn't. What an absurd thing to say. Now i rightfully question your motives for saying such an absurd thing. Lemme guess: you have a fantastic "theory" for which you have zero evidence or research, and which has been ignored by the scientific community.

Nailed it, i bet.

No, you're just embarrassing yourself, but that comes as no real surprise. {"How" was your word.. Do you even remember what you started off arguing?} You don't have to respond at all to my opinions any more than I need respond to yours. But if you really must, at least make some attempt to rebut the alternative scientific explanations I share instead of just clutching your pearls and slinging mud.

You are pretty vague about your alternative scientific explanations.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

The world has its share of injustice and suffering, the victims often being innocent. Let's put it this way... if there is a God, he isn't anything like Christianity defines.

How does Christianity define God? What are you using as your source for what Christians believe and can you quote the relevant part of that source that supports your contention?

I'll quote Lil Nipper as my source. While I don't mean to generalize about every Christian, let's just say that the attitude projected in Post #595 is a common one. In short, I draw on many interactions with Christian people, some who I find reasonable people practicing their faith with quiet dignity, others who insist that in God "we" trust in this one country "under" God.

Surely, you don't mean to suggest that most Christians do not believe their God to be loving and all-powerful? Surely, you don't mean to say that God isn't a god at all? Rather, you appear inclined to lean on Socrates and the Strawman as a means to dodge the obvious.

 

[ding]

The world has its share of injustice and suffering, the victims often being innocent. Let's put it this way... if there is a God, he isn't anything like Christianity defines.

How does Christianity define God? What are you using as your source for what Christians believe and can you quote the relevant part of that source that supports your contention?

I'll quote Lil Nipper as my source. While I don't mean to generalize about every Christian, let's just say that the attitude projected in Post #595 is a common one. In short, I draw on many interactions with Christian people, some who I find reasonable people practicing their faith with quiet dignity, others who insist that in God "we" trust in this one country "under" God.

Surely, you don't mean to suggest that most Christians do not believe their God to be loving and all-powerful? Surely, you don't mean to say that God isn't a god at all? Rather, you appear inclined to lean on Socrates and the Strawman as a means to dodge the obvious.

I believe that no Christian expects the world or people to be perfect or blames God when they aren't. They take it on faith that God's ways are inscrutable and that everything works for good even when they don't understand how.

I will never understand how anyone can see existence as anything but good. I guess it's just human nature to be pessimistic.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

Nothing except some magical being living in the sky.

What makes more sense, nothing deciding to create everything, or God creating everything?

"God" is just your substitute for "nothing". You want a nothing that cares where you put your peepee, because you think you are a special, unique boy and can maybe live forever.

Logically, the first cause must be eternal and unchanging. That rules out matter and energy.

For the most, I agree with the opinion suggested in your first sentence but only in the sense that there is something intuitively agreeable about it. However, said sentence is not logical argument. Rather, it is a declarative statement, a simple opinion. Your second conclusion is entirely bogus because it rest upon the false premise in the first sentence.

Try organizing your supposed logic into a syllogism... and get back to me.

 

[ding]

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

Nothing except some magical being living in the sky.

What makes more sense, nothing deciding to create everything, or God creating everything?

"God" is just your substitute for "nothing". You want a nothing that cares where you put your peepee, because you think you are a special, unique boy and can maybe live forever.

Logically, the first cause must be eternal and unchanging. That rules out matter and energy.

For the most, I agree with the opinion suggested in your first sentence but only in the sense that there is something intuitively agreeable about it. However, said sentence is not logical argument. Rather, it is a declarative statement, a simple opinion. Your second conclusion is entirely bogus because it rest upon the false premise in the first sentence.

Try organizing your supposed logic into a syllogism... and get back to me.

The presence of matter creates space and time which precludes matter from being an eternal source.

Matter is not unchanging which precludes matter from being an eternal source.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are pretty vague about your alternative scientific explanations.

Read up, dummy. You've got years of deprogramming yet to do before you can begin marching forward..

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

 

[ding]

You are pretty vague about your alternative scientific explanations.

Read up, dummy. You've got years of deprogramming yet to do before you can begin marching forward..

If you can't summarize it in a few short sentences in your own words then maybe you are the dummy.

 

[ding]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

 

[Hollie]

Things to ponder besides your belly button..If God created the universe, is earth the only planet in the trillions of planets in the millions of solar systems that He put life on?? If not, does that mean there other 'people' in other parts of the universe who are wondering if there is really a God?? Closer to home, why would a benevolent God create life than sit back and watch it get ravaged by incurable diseases??

Are you familiar with the the Epicurean Riddle? I have seen it presented in different forms, all pointing to the same paradox which you raise.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

GOD is absolute and entirely just and perfect in every way. GOD is LOVE. GOD treats everyone better than they deserve (certainly better than HE is treated). HE offers salvation to everyone who will request it. The issue is that if GOD had destroyed Adam and Eve, HE would be destroying us all as well -- since we are their decedents. So GOD out of LOVE for those HE knew would seek HIM out and be saved, HE had to allow some very arrogant people go to HELL, as they so choose for themselves. GOD is GOD because HE is better than we are. HE created us for his pleasure and satisfaction and not the other way around. People like Carl Sagan maybe in HELL this very moment, unless at some point in life they called out for salvation. We do not know what his childhood was like or moments before he died. He likely had at least some Christian friends. He certainly has no better excuse than anyone else. He didn't live under a rock ------- and neither do you. So, you may say anything you wish concerning GOD; however, you are only digging your own hole and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself.

The invention of your gods as they are described in the Bible, to include the Hebrew scripture co-opted by Christianity, clearly refute your comments about the "just and perfect" gods.

There is no more evil and capricious a figure in all of literature than Yahweh in the OT.

 

[ding]

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

I believe you are confusing my conviction with all knowing. Just because I have thought these things through and they make sense - which is the reason for my conviction - does not mean I claim to know everything. Just more than others who have not thought these things through.

 

[ding]

You've got years of deprogramming yet to do before you can begin marching forward..

You mean like believing that Einstein got it all wrong like you believe.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are pretty vague about your alternative scientific explanations.

Read up, dummy. You've got years of deprogramming yet to do before you can begin marching forward..

Also excellent:

nextexx.com

This domain may be for sale!

nextexx.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"How" was your word

Correct. And at no point did i even imply science understands the "how" of everything, nor would i need to do so for my correct point to be correct. So your continuing, childish rant against that idea is a waste of everyone's time.

Science deals in the"how", not the "why". Get over it and move on.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"How" was your word

Correct. And at no point did i even imply science understands the "how" of everything, nor would i need to do so for my correct point to be correct. So your continuing, childish rant against that idea is a waste of everyone's time.

Science deals in the"how", not the "why". Get over it and move on.

Still grasping at straws? Who accused you of saying "science understands" anything? It studies all. You get over it and move on.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

I believe you are confusing my conviction with all knowing. Just because I have thought these things through and they make sense - which is the reason for my conviction - does not mean I claim to know everything. Just more than others who have not thought these things through.

I accept that you are attempting to softening your position. You don't know everything. Thanks, I agree with that while confessing the same.

Could it be said there is one thing which you know with certainty, the existence of God?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Sorry, but you are running in circles.

If God created existence, then he also created the flawed species that is man. Answer each of the questions provided by the paradox that is the Riddle of Epicurus.

Specifically, what assumptions did I make that aren't true?