Religion is a hypothesis.
- Thread starter walter4
- Start date
Too funny, believers admit a miracle beyond understanding while atheists deftly assume one and hope nobody notices.
1a)As inconvenient for you as it is ""something out of nothing",is exactly what must be assumed.
or
1b)"Something always existed" which is exactly equal to "God always existed".
2)Unless of course you want to argue the only other option left i:
"nothing exists, nor did it ever" which I suspect will make you rather uncomfortable contemplating.
False equivalency, which is sadly commonplace in this forum.
The existence of the universe is not in question, except by dismissable nutjobs or trolls.
The existence of your god is precisely what is in question.
So assuming something that does exist has always existed is not even close to assuming something that is not verified to exist has always existed.
Nero,
This was the quote from k2k you used
from that quote you tried to say in your response.....
That k2k is making an argument from his quote that all opinions and beliefs are irrelevent if it breaks [his] logic is obviously untrue.
Anyone who can read can see your response has nothing to do with the quote from k2k which you used. Nowhere in that quote does it say other opinions and beliefs are irrelevant. You have veered off course to such an extent your response made itself irrelevant to the quote you used and became the victim of its own accusations.
Optional has more than shown he couldn't even correct himself. He has 'trees that can't see the forest' for goodness sakes.
It reminds me when Optional tried to argue 'H2O becomes water'.
He hasn't the first clue about what he is saying. All he can do in the end is make up childish absurdity and personal attacks as substitute for any reasoning.
Nowhere in k2k quote you used does it assume facts to be non-factual. You cannot assume "a universe utterly devoid of the physical would still be full of "mathematical truths"...is a fact in the first place. It does none of the things you say it does which if it did, you say would deserve calling someone and idiot.
That is why I put your words right back at you.
Making an argument that someone made a particular argument when they didn't, makes you look like the complete idiot.
No offense intended.
This was the quote from k2k you used
from that quote you tried to say in your response.....
That k2k is making an argument from his quote that all opinions and beliefs are irrelevent if it breaks [his] logic is obviously untrue.
Anyone who can read can see your response has nothing to do with the quote from k2k which you used. Nowhere in that quote does it say other opinions and beliefs are irrelevant. You have veered off course to such an extent your response made itself irrelevant to the quote you used and became the victim of its own accusations.
Optional has more than shown he couldn't even correct himself. He has 'trees that can't see the forest' for goodness sakes.
It reminds me when Optional tried to argue 'H2O becomes water'.
He hasn't the first clue about what he is saying. All he can do in the end is make up childish absurdity and personal attacks as substitute for any reasoning.
Nowhere in k2k quote you used does it assume facts to be non-factual. You cannot assume "a universe utterly devoid of the physical would still be full of "mathematical truths"...is a fact in the first place. It does none of the things you say it does which if it did, you say would deserve calling someone and idiot.
That is why I put your words right back at you.
Making an argument that someone made a particular argument when they didn't, makes you look like the complete idiot.
No offense intended.
Pure BS, the existence/nature of the universe is precisely what is in question or you are stuck with the "something from nothing" assertion.
Just as the atheist dismisses all evidence around him of God existence so too do scientists discover much to their dismay matter is composed of more and more "nothingness".
The harder they try to discover the basic building blocks of matter the more nothingness they find.
Sorry if you find the truth disconcerting.
"Optional has more than shown he couldn't even correct himself. He has 'trees that can't see the forest' for goodness sakes."
What I said was a fact toady...
Trees can't see the forest.
Doh!
" It reminds me when Optional tried to argue 'H2O becomes water'."
Hey toady, H2O becomes water, then H2O becomes ice, then H2O becomes steam...
Water is the liquid form of H2O, ice is the solid form of H2O, and steam is the gaseous form of H2O.
Man, you are one dumb toady...
What I said was a fact toady...
Trees can't see the forest.
Doh!
" It reminds me when Optional tried to argue 'H2O becomes water'."
Hey toady, H2O becomes water, then H2O becomes ice, then H2O becomes steam...
Water is the liquid form of H2O, ice is the solid form of H2O, and steam is the gaseous form of H2O.
Man, you are one dumb toady...
The ET atheist scientist worshipers are like Cramer's stock picking.
No matter how often they are proved wrong, they are always sure the latest pick (theory) is right...and they are always are dogmatic about that current theory, ranting and raving like lunatics...omitting the flaws in the theory, the incompleteness of knowledge, the lack of common sense, having no means to back test their method, generating models to fit their theory, tweaking those models as much as possible to make them look better than they actually are...
Never do they question a methodology that generates so many false theories, which are embraced as "we now know it all."
Cosmology is pure religion, the atheist scientist worshiper proselytizing of a big bang theory is no different in principle than a Christian quoting John 12:24.
Decade after decade it is a new "revelation" from the atheist scientist worshiper, a brand "new" Eureka...only to slink away when a new theory makes the old theory as useless as shares of Enron...
...and just like Cramer who should have been humbled by how often he is dead wrong, the atheist scientist ignores the history of idiot guesses of scientists, spouting with full certainty that "Now we know!!!"
No matter how often they are proved wrong, they are always sure the latest pick (theory) is right...and they are always are dogmatic about that current theory, ranting and raving like lunatics...omitting the flaws in the theory, the incompleteness of knowledge, the lack of common sense, having no means to back test their method, generating models to fit their theory, tweaking those models as much as possible to make them look better than they actually are...
Never do they question a methodology that generates so many false theories, which are embraced as "we now know it all."
Cosmology is pure religion, the atheist scientist worshiper proselytizing of a big bang theory is no different in principle than a Christian quoting John 12:24.
Decade after decade it is a new "revelation" from the atheist scientist worshiper, a brand "new" Eureka...only to slink away when a new theory makes the old theory as useless as shares of Enron...
...and just like Cramer who should have been humbled by how often he is dead wrong, the atheist scientist ignores the history of idiot guesses of scientists, spouting with full certainty that "Now we know!!!"
You are either suggesting the existence of the Universe is in question OR how the Universe came into existence is in question.
Which is it?
There is evidence the Universe exists. There is no such evidence God exists.
You haven't yet determined nor have you apparently understood the difference in how the Universe exists and God doesn't, yet, you are evidently conceited enough to presume to know scientists are "dismayed" and are discovering "nothingness".
As to what may be truth, your credibility is shot by the things you state but are obviously determined to understand nothing about.
Which is exactly what religion teaches you to do.