Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid...
- Thread starter Joe
- Start date
..me too, his actually exists.
Replace the word God/creator with leprechaun, tooth fairy, pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, doppelganger, vampire, werewolf, fairies, Thor or the much talked about spaghetti monster and you get the same argument with the same flawed logic.
yeah but that is not the argument.
the argument is that when you have a complicated creation and you are not sure how it is made... one of the choices would almost always be a Creator and almost all of the top scientists agree...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
the argument is that when you have a complicated creation and you are not sure how it is made... one of the choices would almost always be a Creator and almost all of the top scientists agree...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
No...... read the second sentence. they are saying we science takes us back to the birth of our universe. Our universe did not just exist... it started 13 billion years ago.
If you wish to say that something had to come "before" you are pretty much admitting their could be a Creator.
Is that the second or third time I have had to explain that on this thread alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debatedâcertainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[14] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[15][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years.[17] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ÎCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe. In 2013 new Planck data corrected this age to 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years.[2]
If you wish to say that something had to come "before" you are pretty much admitting their could be a Creator.
Is that the second or third time I have had to explain that on this thread alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[13] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debatedâcertainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[14] but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself,[15][notes 1] which can be considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years.[17] The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ÎCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe. In 2013 new Planck data corrected this age to 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years.[2]
I still can't believe these two atheist trolls are bullshitting about basic science.
Virtually all of science state the big bang is the beginning of our universe... our universe had a beginning... it did not exist forever. How you two athiest trolls could be arguing that point is mystifying. You two are giving atheism a bad rap here. non troll atheists promote good science... they don't troll out bullshit just because science points to a beginning.
Virtually all of science state the big bang is the beginning of our universe... our universe had a beginning... it did not exist forever. How you two athiest trolls could be arguing that point is mystifying. You two are giving atheism a bad rap here. non troll atheists promote good science... they don't troll out bullshit just because science points to a beginning.
Incredible...
For âunbelieversâ:
If there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possibilities, we may indeed just happen to be in one with just the right combo of natural laws to allow us to exist as we do.
But who among you has traversed that multi-verse of infinite possibilities - let alone just the totality of our own visible universe - to make any claims about what does or does not exist in it/them? The legitimacy of any claim about what doesnât exist among them begs the same proof as proof for the existence of God. An organism that looks like a flying spaghetti monster living on another world? Or in another universe? Why not? What is to prevent that except the limits of human perception (which changes over time)?
For "believers":
What is the point in having an argument to "convince" someone? Have you ever considered that having âproofâ is not even a desired outcome? Why? Because it removes free will. At that point, God is simply to be obeyed without any human volition involved at all.
Everyone needs to reread âThe Blind Men and the Elephantâ
For âunbelieversâ:
If there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of possibilities, we may indeed just happen to be in one with just the right combo of natural laws to allow us to exist as we do.
But who among you has traversed that multi-verse of infinite possibilities - let alone just the totality of our own visible universe - to make any claims about what does or does not exist in it/them? The legitimacy of any claim about what doesnât exist among them begs the same proof as proof for the existence of God. An organism that looks like a flying spaghetti monster living on another world? Or in another universe? Why not? What is to prevent that except the limits of human perception (which changes over time)?
For "believers":
What is the point in having an argument to "convince" someone? Have you ever considered that having âproofâ is not even a desired outcome? Why? Because it removes free will. At that point, God is simply to be obeyed without any human volition involved at all.
Everyone needs to reread âThe Blind Men and the Elephantâ
Most of the top cosmologists - you know, the people who know the most about how it happened - are atheists. And the higher level of knowledge and expertise in the area of the natural sciences, the more likely that the person is an atheist. In short, the more someone knows about nature, the less they attribute it to "God" or a similar kind of creator. To say that most of the top scientists attribute the universe to a creator is laughably wrong, but par for the course for jem.