Is Atheism a crutch for people who donât understand the complexity of God?
- Thread starter sho-tim
- Start date
I think about time as something not constant as well, but do not think Einstein had it right when formulating his relativity theories.
Time is an event/relation with locality - i.e a sequence ordering. Therefore it can be relative, but it is not a universally absolute, or unified spacetime as Einstein put it. Also, "speed of light" is not constant in reality - but variable depending on the substance it is passing through and other dependencies/forces.
Time is an event/relation with locality - i.e a sequence ordering. Therefore it can be relative, but it is not a universally absolute, or unified spacetime as Einstein put it. Also, "speed of light" is not constant in reality - but variable depending on the substance it is passing through and other dependencies/forces.
Well, first - creating traces of history contradicting the age of the earth is not perfect.
Why not? Do you know how he wanted it to turn out? If not, its hard to say whether its perfect or not...
Creating millions of years of history inherent in everything is not perfection - it is contradictory to the religious texts that say it was all created a few thousand years ago.
That doesn't even make sense. They say it was created a few thousand years ago...how does when it was created have anything to do with whether or not is was created with age already apparent in it?
You said the idea that ""maybe he already created history into everything at an instant" - is just contradictory to what the religious texts all say"...They hint as to when it was created, but nothing at all says anything about it being created with apparent age or not. you said it was "in the text" so i ask again..WHERE?
Contradictions, lies or deceit oppose perfection and "absolute truth".
Oh really? You should be careful here, unless you happen to know what exactly "absolute truth" is (you dont) maybe you shouldn't speculate as to its attributes. You should know better. You seem to want to skip over the whole creation thing now and go into the character of this supreme being and you are really trying to avoid the questions I'm asking.
Secondly you said: "I asked for evidence against a supreme being's existence."
As we all know - science and evidence through reasoning and reality - can prove or disprove claims. You were calling on science to disprove creationism and religion - i.e using science and logic to try and support your views.
Wow this is a new low. I was calling on science to disprove creationism, yes. Why? Direct quote from YOU: "Science disproves creationism and evolution has already been proved" I was only asking for what you said you already had...how is asking you for what you said you had (scientific evidence against creationism) trying to support MY views. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT! My views are that I don't know. The reason you are making a mockery of yourself is that you are trying to prove that you DO know something (even though now you are actively back peddling) while I am just asking you for the evidence that you say you have.
Finally - there is no support for religion or creationism within science. Science incrementally supports irreligion and atheism
Yet you still haven't given one example...
You have some fun trying to twist your way around logics and science
I'm not twisting anything. You are the one leaving my points unanswered, fabricating support from the bible, insulting me and then claiming IM the one twisting things up! I just want straight answers, but you are unable to provide any.
-however, that doesn't work with me
lol Oh, ok. I could take your side from here and you could take mine and I could completely turn this thing around. Go read our posts to each other, its pretty obvious and you know it...hence your obvious frustration at the end. You've yet to offer ANY scientific proof against creationism and I have asked your for it multiple times. You then try to project the flawed point of view that science supports creationism onto me, when I never said ANYTHING to that end, just so you could try to look like you were getting somewhere...all I ever said was that science cannot deny creationism, I never said creationism was support by it...that would be stupid. And then you try to say that me asking for scientific proof against creationism (which you said you had) is equal to me saying that creationsim is supported by science? wtf? that doesnt even make sense.
and frankly just shows your lack of knowledge of these fields. That you are a youngster might show in your efforts - and good luck growing up. Don't blow your wad too early.
Most people would have just stopped posting by now. Go back and read the thread lol. Whats funny is you thought you soooo intellectually superior. You bit off more than you could chew with this one and its pretty obvious. I knew you would quip about my age, but I wanted to bring you down to earth a little bit. Next time you decide to insult me, bring the KY jelly, because I know this whole debate hurt.
Why not? Do you know how he wanted it to turn out? If not, its hard to say whether its perfect or not...
Creating millions of years of history inherent in everything is not perfection - it is contradictory to the religious texts that say it was all created a few thousand years ago.
That doesn't even make sense. They say it was created a few thousand years ago...how does when it was created have anything to do with whether or not is was created with age already apparent in it?
You said the idea that ""maybe he already created history into everything at an instant" - is just contradictory to what the religious texts all say"...They hint as to when it was created, but nothing at all says anything about it being created with apparent age or not. you said it was "in the text" so i ask again..WHERE?
Contradictions, lies or deceit oppose perfection and "absolute truth".
Oh really? You should be careful here, unless you happen to know what exactly "absolute truth" is (you dont) maybe you shouldn't speculate as to its attributes. You should know better. You seem to want to skip over the whole creation thing now and go into the character of this supreme being and you are really trying to avoid the questions I'm asking.
Secondly you said: "I asked for evidence against a supreme being's existence."
As we all know - science and evidence through reasoning and reality - can prove or disprove claims. You were calling on science to disprove creationism and religion - i.e using science and logic to try and support your views.
Wow this is a new low. I was calling on science to disprove creationism, yes. Why? Direct quote from YOU: "Science disproves creationism and evolution has already been proved" I was only asking for what you said you already had...how is asking you for what you said you had (scientific evidence against creationism) trying to support MY views. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID IT! My views are that I don't know. The reason you are making a mockery of yourself is that you are trying to prove that you DO know something (even though now you are actively back peddling) while I am just asking you for the evidence that you say you have.
Finally - there is no support for religion or creationism within science. Science incrementally supports irreligion and atheism
Yet you still haven't given one example...
You have some fun trying to twist your way around logics and science
I'm not twisting anything. You are the one leaving my points unanswered, fabricating support from the bible, insulting me and then claiming IM the one twisting things up! I just want straight answers, but you are unable to provide any.
-however, that doesn't work with me
lol Oh, ok. I could take your side from here and you could take mine and I could completely turn this thing around. Go read our posts to each other, its pretty obvious and you know it...hence your obvious frustration at the end. You've yet to offer ANY scientific proof against creationism and I have asked your for it multiple times. You then try to project the flawed point of view that science supports creationism onto me, when I never said ANYTHING to that end, just so you could try to look like you were getting somewhere...all I ever said was that science cannot deny creationism, I never said creationism was support by it...that would be stupid. And then you try to say that me asking for scientific proof against creationism (which you said you had) is equal to me saying that creationsim is supported by science? wtf? that doesnt even make sense.
and frankly just shows your lack of knowledge of these fields. That you are a youngster might show in your efforts - and good luck growing up. Don't blow your wad too early.
Most people would have just stopped posting by now. Go back and read the thread lol. Whats funny is you thought you soooo intellectually superior. You bit off more than you could chew with this one and its pretty obvious. I knew you would quip about my age, but I wanted to bring you down to earth a little bit. Next time you decide to insult me, bring the KY jelly, because I know this whole debate hurt.
Quote from jonbig04:
I have problems with the whole time machine thing...only because if they were possible...wouldnt we have already met somebody from the future?
Well, it depends.
If they can't go fast enough, then same problem.
If you are a believer in the cult of einstein
(I am due to the fact that his math is indisputable so far)
They can't go fast enough either. If you do not believe in no other life anywhere, the distances involved put a wrench in things.
Personally, there are 100 billion stars, more or less, in the Milky Way, and 100 billion galaxies. We think.
I believe there is life all over the place, but distance is the THING. The prob.
Jayford,
a sequence of events does not move backwards. A sequence can be halted, but not moved backwards.
And constants - of course there are many phenomenons that appear to correlate at constant equilibrium - hence constants. However, conditions may change - and the various gas model theories are a very good example of this.