Is There a God?

[Mavorpen]

Your opinion on Atheism is not shared by all, there is also evidence against the big bang, and the lack of God holds preposterous because of the proof of God, rather than the... Double-plus unproof.

I laughed so hard at the Wikipedia page about the Big Bang. Inflation solves all of those problems.

[Mavorpen]

It's foolish to say that because we don't know every detail, therefore global flooding definitely happened. Step down from your high horse pretending like things happened just because you say they did.

That's hardly what I said. I said that there are many reasons that it could have happened. Relax a little.

Your reasons are not reasons.

[Samuraikoku]

Your opinion on Atheism is not shared by all, there is also evidence against the big bang, and the lack of God holds preposterous because of the proof of God, rather than the... Double-plus unproof.

Alain de Botton? Not a serious authority.

Problems? Your own source cites theories that are posed to solve those problems.

There are generally considered to be three outstanding problems with the Big Bang theory: the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the magnetic monopole problem. The most common answer to these problems is inflationary theory; however, since this creates new problems, other options have been proposed, such as the Weyl curvature hypothesis.[76][77]

And what is this double-plus unproof or whatever?

[Person012345]

2: Every observable object in the universe is moving away from a central area

Actually that's not true. It doesn't matter where you're standing, all galaxies appear to be moving away from you uniformly. >.>

[Person012345]

I don't believe in atheism. Atheism isn't a religion. Also, there apparently is evidence.
Why is no God preposterous?

Your opinion on Atheism is not shared by all, there is also evidence against the big bang, and the lack of God holds preposterous because of the proof of God, rather than the... Double-plus unproof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Alikhaa]

That's hardly what I said. I said that there are many reasons that it could have happened. Relax a little.

Your reasons are not reasons.

I didn't even list them, so what are you referencing? The single one that I said could be a contributor?

It seems that you're getting a little over-defensive and it's making you irrational. Are you upset because I'm communicating in a reasonable way and that doesn't work in your paradigm of religious people?

Here are just a few of the reasons it could have happened.

1. Glacial melt
2. Thermal expansion
3. Sea-floor spreading

[Person012345]

Your reasons are not reasons.

I didn't even list them, so what are you referencing? The single one that I said could be a contributor?

It seems that you're getting a little over-defensive and it's making you irrational. Are you upset because I'm communicating in a reasonable way and that doesn't work in your paradigm of religious people?

Here are just a few of the reasons it could have happened.

1. Glacial melt
2. Thermal expansion
3. Sea-floor spreading

I don't think those are feasible. However, it doesn't explain the complete absence of evidence for a global flood in the geological record.

[Nidaria]

I have no idea why atheists are bringing up the big bang, except to divert the attention of the posters. The Big Bang, if it existed (as it well might) could disprove creationism, but is unrelated to the question of God and to this discussion. God could simply have made the universe with the Big Bang and developed it with evolution. Even so, where could have the Big Bang come from? Most educated people would find the idea of a giant puff of hydrogen occurring out of nowhere and for no reason preposterous compared to the idea of an eternal, all-perfect Creator. Everything in science indicates that something is always caused by another, which in turn is caused by something else. Sooner or later there must be a First Cause, and atheistic scientists have failed to provide information as to what that could be. It is not the theists who refuse to listen to the voice of reason.

[Nidaria]

I didn't even list them, so what are you referencing? The single one that I said could be a contributor?

It seems that you're getting a little over-defensive and it's making you irrational. Are you upset because I'm communicating in a reasonable way and that doesn't work in your paradigm of religious people?

Here are just a few of the reasons it could have happened.

1. Glacial melt
2. Thermal expansion
3. Sea-floor spreading

I don't think those are feasible. However, it doesn't explain the complete absence of evidence for a global flood in the geological record.

The evidence is overwhelming. Unfortunately, people are also able to ignore evidence. Please tell me, what does this have to do with God?

[Samuraikoku]

I have no idea why atheists are bringing up the big bang, except to divert the attention of the posters. The Big Bang, if it existed (as it well might) could disprove creationism, but is unrelated to the question of God and to this discussion. God could simply have made the universe with the Big Bang and developed it with evolution. Even so, where could have the Big Bang come from? Most educated people would find the idea of a giant puff of hydrogen occurring out of nowhere and for no reason preposterous compared to the idea of an eternal, all-perfect Creator. Everything in science indicates that something is always caused by another, which in turn is caused by something else. Sooner or later there must be a First Cause, and atheistic scientists have failed to provide information as to what that could be. It is not the theists who refuse to listen to the voice of reason.

What is the First Cause for God?

[The Nuclear Fist]

I have no idea why atheists are bringing up the big bang,

Atheists didn't bring up the Big Bang, Nordengrund did.

[Person012345]

I have no idea why atheists are bringing up the big bang, except to divert the attention of the posters. The Big Bang, if it existed (as it well might) could disprove creationism, but is unrelated to the question of God and to this discussion. God could simply have made the universe with the Big Bang and developed it with evolution. Even so, where could have the Big Bang come from? Most educated people would find the idea of a giant puff of hydrogen occurring out of nowhere and for no reason preposterous compared to the idea of an eternal, all-perfect Creator. Everything in science indicates that something is always caused by another, which in turn is caused by something else. Sooner or later there must be a First Cause, and atheistic scientists have failed to provide information as to what that could be. It is not the theists who refuse to listen to the voice of reason.

I'm pretty sure it's the creationists who have been bringing it up.

And this has been covered: What caused god? If nothing, then SOMETHING must be able to exist without a cause - if you accept this, then your argument is bunk (because not everything needs a cause). If everything does need a cause, then what caused god?

[Person012345]

I don't think those are feasible. However, it doesn't explain the complete absence of evidence for a global flood in the geological record.

The evidence is overwhelming. Unfortunately, people are also able to ignore evidence. Please tell me, what does this have to do with God?

Stating something =/= proving it. Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geol ... od_geology

I didn't bring it up.

[Vareiln]

I have no idea why atheists are bringing up the big bang, except to divert the attention of the posters. The Big Bang, if it existed (as it well might) could disprove creationism, but is unrelated to the question of God and to this discussion. God could simply have made the universe with the Big Bang and developed it with evolution. Even so, where could have the Big Bang come from? Most educated people would find the idea of a giant puff of hydrogen occurring out of nowhere and for no reason preposterous compared to the idea of an eternal, all-perfect Creator. Everything in science indicates that something is always caused by another, which in turn is caused by something else. Sooner or later there must be a First Cause, and atheistic scientists have failed to provide information as to what that could be. It is not the theists who refuse to listen to the voice of reason.

You know, I'll quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson on this:
"If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for god, then god is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

[Alikhaa]

God's definition means that God is self-causing. One of the names of God in Islam is 'self-subsistent'. This, however, violates the law that 'everything needs a cause'. You can argue that if something can be self-subsistent, the universe can be self-subsistent. However, this isn't an argument against God. This becomes an argument stating that it is possible for God not to exist, not that God doesn't exist. The distinction is important.

[Samuraikoku]

The evidence is overwhelming.

Bring it.

[Person012345]

God's definition means that God is self-causing. One of the names of God in Islam is 'self-subsistent'. This, however, violates the law that 'everything needs a cause'. You can argue that if something can be self-subsistent, the universe can be self-subsistent. However, this isn't an argument against God. This becomes an argument stating that it is possible for God not to exist, not that God doesn't exist. The distinction is important.

Yes it is. But, it proves that this argument FOR god also applies if god is not true. As you said. What that means is that the argument does not support the idea of god over the idea of not-god. Therefore it's not an argument in favour of god.

[Alikhaa]

God's definition means that God is self-causing. One of the names of God in Islam is 'self-subsistent'. This, however, violates the law that 'everything needs a cause'. You can argue that if something can be self-subsistent, the universe can be self-subsistent. However, this isn't an argument against God. This becomes an argument stating that it is possible for God not to exist, not that God doesn't exist. The distinction is important.

Yes it is. But, it proves that this argument FOR god also applies if god is not true. As you said. What that means is that the argument does not support the idea of god over the idea of not-god. Therefore it's not an argument in favour of god.

Yeah, like I said. It just invalidates the previous argument against God.

[The New World Oceania]

I have no idea why atheists are bringing up the big bang, except to divert the attention of the posters. The Big Bang, if it existed (as it well might) could disprove creationism, but is unrelated to the question of God and to this discussion. God could simply have made the universe with the Big Bang and developed it with evolution. Even so, where could have the Big Bang come from? Most educated people would find the idea of a giant puff of hydrogen occurring out of nowhere and for no reason preposterous compared to the idea of an eternal, all-perfect Creator. Everything in science indicates that something is always caused by another, which in turn is caused by something else. Sooner or later there must be a First Cause, and atheistic scientists have failed to provide information as to what that could be. It is not the theists who refuse to listen to the voice of reason.

What is the First Cause for God?

Apotheosis.

[Person012345]

What is the First Cause for God?

Apotheosis.

What caused that?

[Samuraikoku]

Apotheosis.

Of what?

[Twilliamson]

By the way, what caused the big bang? I don't know. I don't even know if that is a sensical question. It might be like asking "what happened before time". But saying "god done it" doesn't explain anything, it's just making things up.

God created us because he loves us and enjoys creating things, the Big Bang seems to have happened for no reason unless God caused it.

So you have prove of this. If you don't it just a story. I could say a giant space egg was floating in differnt universe in the begin at time. Then the space egg hatched when it was inbetween the differnt universe. When it hatch it caused the big bang and created the universe. See anyone can make up a story

[Samuraikoku]

Apotheosis.

Of what?

Hell, I'd like that apotheosis to be of me. *sigh*

[Goddess Diva Hatsune Miku]

Science and magic are becoming one and the same. Science has a lot of phenomena that can't be explained. Look at the behavior of electrons. We just snootily call the parts we understand the most science and feel accomplished.

So true. Completely agree. Espers are the true gods.

[Norstal]

Yes.

And that right there is the problem, and why Theists and Non-Theists will always be divided.

To us, such thinking is a contradiction to reason, and Non-Theists find it perfectly acceptable.

It's more reasonable than to assume "god did it" when we don't even know what a god is.

How do you know your god is not created in an accident?