Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,354 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 660,449
Pageviews Today: 966,405Threads Today: 295Posts Today: 4,943
10:49 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29140865
Canada
12/05/2012 12:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Yes, good question.

But on the other hand, if God created the "something", then who created God?

Both questions, imo, are equally valid and perplexing.
 Quoting: Thor's Hamster



I believe this is a well-accepted explanation of this.


[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29140865


Thank you hf What a clever, slippery tongued presenter. I found his arguments very entertaining.
 Quoting: Prostetnik


Like Mr. Craig states, if we were to entertain an 'eternal regress' in every scientific find, we would get no where; the scientific community accepts this 'explantion' in its own investigations and hypothesis'. It's too bad Dawkins always leans on the most trivial and illogical of defenses; he always sounds like a whiny 15 year old. I find Dr. Craig refreshing as he invites the scientific mind and the logical to reason from.
Prostetnik

User ID: 29135854
Canada
12/05/2012 12:08 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
You of all people must read this book:
[link to books.google.ca]
 Quoting: Prostetnik


Oh look, you can download it free in PDF format:


[link to www.andrewsmcmeel.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21573370
Canada
12/05/2012 12:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
You have to understand the concept of "ALL THAT IS" meaning. that EVERYTHING has ALREADY EXISTED... NOTHING EXISTS OUTSIDE OF

"ALL THAT IS"

All that is separates itself to create a reflection of itself, to experience itself.

The process continues. Further and further away from the source of "All that is" until you reach the human condition.

Which is still "All that is" experiencing itself.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21573370


You must have enjoyed "God's Debris" By Scott Addams.
 Quoting: Prostetnik


I've never heard of it.

But its why people who are Christian are confused.

They believe that GOD (All that is) exists outside of them, when in fact we exists within "All that is".

It creates confusion because they begin to believe that GOD controls their life outside of their power. Because "HE" (yeah they even give him a gender) exists outside of them.

They also give him human traits like jealousy and judgement.

However, God is ALL THAT IS. It does not have a gender. It is "isness" itself encompassing EVERYTHING.

The creation that is created out of the separation IS the point of life.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21573370


That is a wonderful god you have there, but it is NOT the Christian God. The only information we have of God is from the Bible, therefore, what it states is who God is. Where you have gotten you information from is beyond me. Care to share?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29140865


I read the bible and clearly people were quite gullible back then.

"Chop the foreskin of your childrens penis off"
"Why"?
"Cause god said so."
"Okay!"

Enlightened people connected to "GOD" AKA. ALL THAT IS, AKA "Source" And misinterpreted the information they were downloading (channelling).

Their belief systems prevented them from being able to comprehend that they were an extension of this "entity" they were connecting to. They perceived it as it being separate from themselves. They created the god image. This is what started so much chaos.


These so called "holy" people that were so blessed and able to "speak to god" were not actually talking to god. God was not talking to them. They were simply able to put their ego out of the way as much as possible and perceive more of who they were. They interpreted it into things that are now-a-days, basic knowledge.

-Do good to others
-Be respectful
-Treat people the way you want to be treated
-Don't lie
-Don't cheat

This knowledge is accessible to everyone these days. But back then it took enlightened people (who could connect to source without their ego in the way) to bring forth such basic knowledge.


This goes on to this day. But they aren't called gods or prophets or any of that garbage, they are called channels. They are treated equal, everyone can do it.
david
User ID: 16910407
United States
12/05/2012 12:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Also "Atheism" is really tied into "Mysticism"
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21573370


how? those two terms seem somehow incongruous.
david
User ID: 16910407
United States
12/05/2012 12:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Also "Atheism" is really tied into "Mysticism"
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21573370


how? those two terms seem somehow incongruous.
tuesday451
User ID: 1794281
United States
12/05/2012 12:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
all the talk about if or if not there is a supreme overlord of existence is meaningless.

purposefully one should identify their own reasoning for living regardless of outside influence, and share their experience with those around them who are just as privileged to be alive at the same time.

you need no religion, no god, no science, no predisposition to be alive.

if we all started really, actually giving a damn about ourselves and others, religion would be obsolete as all would live pious lives without a book of ancient words demanding it.


regarding the original question of what started the starting point, well, our collective mind hasn't been able to determine this yet. I personally much prefer to believe that we are all scientifically proven to exist rather than to give blind faith I was created by that which is.

i mean, technically it is a similiar point of view, except I don't have to keep blind trust or live by ancient organized and arrogant rules created by people with sand in their orifices.

I'd prefer to live by the established understandings of how our organic sentience happens to exist in this extremely rare circumstance called life.

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21573370
Canada
12/05/2012 12:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Also "Atheism" is really tied into "Mysticism"
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21573370


how? those two terms seem somehow incongruous.
 Quoting: david 16910407


Generally speaking, Atheists don't believe in god but they also believe that things happen outside of their control.


Listen to their speech. They blame others, they blame government, they blame religion. They believe in mystic forces that control their lives.


A perfect atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in god and at the same time believes 100% in themselves and would take things that happen to them in their lives as learning lesson to adjust whatever it is they believe in, into something that would suit them more.

However, this is generally not the case.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27205820
United States
12/05/2012 12:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1549626
United States
12/05/2012 12:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
...


No it's not useless it simply isn't as simplistically definitive as you would like (a far to common fallacy of the empirically minded who like throw Occam at ever complex argument). To simply say it doesn't preclude the existence of other Gods in other religions so therefore it bunk, is completely unlogically dismissive of what it does say. I quite well pointed out that I thought the idea of God was completely unprovable.

But that is different then saying there isn't evidence. I see far too many people claim "there is not one shred of evidence supporting the claim of God". It's not true. There is plenty of evidence. Plenty of historical evidence for most of the claims the bible makes. Can a reasonable argument be made for alternative explanations in most cases? Sure. But that by itself isn't falsification which is far too often the assumption.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1549626


Uhm?

Please show 1 contemporary non-Biblical piece of evidence or reference even of any supernatural occurrence that is described in the Bible.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


I understand what you are asking for but the evidence you "want" doesn't have to exist for there to be evidence. Dismissing the bible in kind is being dismissive of evidence that is available. It is perfectly reasonable especially given the date of the account that the bible is the only source. Not to mention that the bible isn't one source but actually an account written by multiple sources. It just happens to be compounded into one Volume.

but since you asked for non-biblical here you go: Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

He directly reports that there were Christians who in fact did claim that Jesus rose from the dead. You can be dismissive of these reports if you would like. You can come up with any number of reasonable explanations as to why they might say what they said. But the account remains evidence. You may not think they are very credible but they remain evidence despite your feelings on their credibility.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1549626


Look up the word contemporary please (of which this is not an example).

Nor does his testimony provide any reference to a supernatural act as described in the Bible (think darkness over all the land during the day for 3 hours at Jesus'es crucifixion as described in Mark 15:33).
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


Again you seem to be ignoring the point. I was countering the point of their being NO evidence. I never claimed Flavius was a contemporary of Jesus's time period. I could probably point to some Gnostic sources but I suspect you will have the same issue with those as you have with the biblical ones. "Moving the goalposts" by requiring a contemporary non-biblical source is a credibility requirement of your own making.

That said I understand the point you are making in that if 3 days of darkness happened, someone should have certainly written about it. But the lack of survival of such an account isn't compelling enough on its own to completely dismiss out of hand that the account actually occurred as biblically stated.

I have stated and maintain that while evidence exists, it exists in a state of perpetual reasonable doubt. This, I believe, is to give you the option of logically saying you don't believe. The flip side is of course true, though I hardly expect you'll agree: That there is also an option of logically saying that you DO believe the biblical account.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27205820
United States
12/05/2012 12:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
We don't know how the universe was formed. You can speculate by reading a work of fiction or some outdated science book. I won't blame anyone for their opinion and I don't need a fictional god to save my soul. I don't have one. I'll make the best of the time I have on this Earth.

No need to get upset. It is what it is.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22089462
Netherlands
12/05/2012 12:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Also "Atheism" is really tied into "Mysticism"
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21573370


how? those two terms seem somehow incongruous.
 Quoting: david 16910407


Generally speaking, Atheists don't believe in god but they also believe that things happen outside of their control.


Listen to their speech. They blame others, they blame government, they blame religion. They believe in mystic forces that control their lives.


A perfect atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in god and at the same time believes 100% in themselves and would take things that happen to them in their lives as learning lesson to adjust whatever it is they believe in, into something that would suit them more.

However, this is generally not the case.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21573370


So the government, others and religion are "mystic forces"?

That doesn't seem to make a lot sense....

Oh and yes a lot of things that happen in life happen due to circumstances which are indeed not in your control. Deal with it.

Unless of course you are saying that when a car runs into your tail end at 80 kph while you are waiting for a red light is something you have full control of... In which case I would just classify you as a retard.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1516308
Netherlands
12/05/2012 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Time is just a concept. Asking what was there before time is like asking what was there before 3 dimension. Time is just a property of reality.

If you want to find out these things watch this guy

[link to www.youtube.com]

This shit will hut your brain.

He got lots of other stuff that are very interesting.

This is also one of my favorites and gives a pretty good picture about the relativity of time.

[link to www.youtube.com]
Psych

User ID: 903456
Netherlands
12/05/2012 12:52 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22089462
Netherlands
12/05/2012 12:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
...


Uhm?

Please show 1 contemporary non-Biblical piece of evidence or reference even of any supernatural occurrence that is described in the Bible.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


I understand what you are asking for but the evidence you "want" doesn't have to exist for there to be evidence. Dismissing the bible in kind is being dismissive of evidence that is available. It is perfectly reasonable especially given the date of the account that the bible is the only source. Not to mention that the bible isn't one source but actually an account written by multiple sources. It just happens to be compounded into one Volume.

but since you asked for non-biblical here you go: Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:


"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

He directly reports that there were Christians who in fact did claim that Jesus rose from the dead. You can be dismissive of these reports if you would like. You can come up with any number of reasonable explanations as to why they might say what they said. But the account remains evidence. You may not think they are very credible but they remain evidence despite your feelings on their credibility.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1549626


Look up the word contemporary please (of which this is not an example).

Nor does his testimony provide any reference to a supernatural act as described in the Bible (think darkness over all the land during the day for 3 hours at Jesus'es crucifixion as described in Mark 15:33).
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


Again you seem to be ignoring the point. I was countering the point of their being NO evidence. I never claimed Flavius was a contemporary of Jesus's time period. I could probably point to some Gnostic sources but I suspect you will have the same issue with those as you have with the biblical ones. "Moving the goalposts" by requiring a contemporary non-biblical source is a credibility requirement of your own making.

That said I understand the point you are making in that if 3 days of darkness happened, someone should have certainly written about it. But the lack of survival of such an account isn't compelling enough on its own to completely dismiss out of hand that the account actually occurred as biblically stated.

I have stated and maintain that while evidence exists, it exists in a state of perpetual reasonable doubt. This, I believe, is to give you the option of logically saying you don't believe. The flip side is of course true, though I hardly expect you'll agree: That there is also an option of logically saying that you DO believe the biblical account.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1549626


I'll quote what you responded to again;


Please show 1 contemporary non-Biblical piece of evidence or reference even of any supernatural occurrence that is described in the Bible.


So you essentially gave me a reference which I never asked for. Even though you claimed I asked for it (see the part I bolded in your post). Oh and it was 3 days? I thought it was 3 hours out of my head? I thought the 3 days darkness thingie was in some end times prophecy? Or was it with Moses in Egypt?

Which is also why I kinda asked for ANY non-biblical reference to ANY supernatural occurrence described in the Bible... I agree not having references to 1 miracle might not be very reliable, but ultimately there just isn't any evidence of any of the miracles (OT or NT) in the Bible.
Maguyver

User ID: 808852
United States
12/05/2012 12:53 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
We don't know how the universe was formed. You can speculate by reading a work of fiction or some outdated science book. I won't blame anyone for their opinion and I don't need a fictional god to save my soul. I don't have one. I'll make the best of the time I have on this Earth.

No need to get upset. It is what it is.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27205820


Then what is it that part of you in in tune with the supernatural? Is there no supernatural?

You are on a conspiracy, alien, lunatic fringe, site for petes sake.

On a more serious note, you cannot know for sure if you have a soul or not. You FEEL you don't have one. You have no proof of it's existance or absence. That question will be answered when your body dies.

You'll just turn off, or you see the light (or darkness) that's so often mentioned in near death experiences. This the simplistic version...there's more to the NDE than just that. My hunch is you'll discover you have a soul.

cheers
Adversity is inevitable, misery is optional.

Do or do not. There is no try.

"The enemy will never attack where you are strongest...He will attack where you are weakest. If you do not know your weakest point, be certain, your enemy will." Sun Tzu
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29140865
Canada
12/05/2012 01:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Quote: This is what started so much chaos.


Matthew 10:34-35
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—



No, Jesus came to divide and so we are all divided, even whole families. We are divided as to Jesus Christ, Himself so that those who are 'for Him' are clearly recognized so that the 'wheat is separated from the chaff":

Matthew 3:12
12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”



"There are only two classes of people in the world in the sight of God, and both are mentioned in the text, which begins this paper. There are those who are called the wheat, and there are those who are called the chaff.

Viewed with the eye of man, the earth contains many different sorts of inhabitants. Viewed with the eye of God it only contains two. Man's eye looks at the outward appearance—this is all he thinks of. The eye of God looks at the heart—this is the only part of which He takes any account. And tested by the state of their hearts, there are only two classes into which people can be divided—either they are wheat, or they are chaff."

[link to www.gracegems.org]



Matthew 12:30

30 “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29140865
Canada
12/05/2012 01:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.

 Quoting: Psych


Although, interesting, they seem to forget that the 'nothing' to which they refer, is still part of the 'something' called space which was 'created'. Nothingness is not measurable, because we DO NOT have this 'nothing' which existed before the 'something' was created.

Their 'nothing' is still, 'space' or the vacuum which is clearly still part of the 'something'.
Maguyver

User ID: 808852
United States
12/05/2012 01:22 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Time is just a concept. Asking what was there before time is like asking what was there before 3 dimension. Time is just a property of reality.

If you want to find out these things watch this guy

[link to www.youtube.com]

This shit will hut your brain.

He got lots of other stuff that are very interesting.

This is also one of my favorites and gives a pretty good picture about the relativity of time.

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: Phill


Good stuff. I've always had difficulty wrapping my head around the space-time concept, speed of light, gravity, and other offshoots of E=MC2.

Thanks for the links!

cheers
Adversity is inevitable, misery is optional.

Do or do not. There is no try.

"The enemy will never attack where you are strongest...He will attack where you are weakest. If you do not know your weakest point, be certain, your enemy will." Sun Tzu
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1549626
United States
12/05/2012 01:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
...


I understand what you are asking for but the evidence you "want" doesn't have to exist for there to be evidence. Dismissing the bible in kind is being dismissive of evidence that is available. It is perfectly reasonable especially given the date of the account that the bible is the only source. Not to mention that the bible isn't one source but actually an account written by multiple sources. It just happens to be compounded into one Volume.

but since you asked for non-biblical here you go: Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:


"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

He directly reports that there were Christians who in fact did claim that Jesus rose from the dead. You can be dismissive of these reports if you would like. You can come up with any number of reasonable explanations as to why they might say what they said. But the account remains evidence. You may not think they are very credible but they remain evidence despite your feelings on their credibility.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1549626


Look up the word contemporary please (of which this is not an example).

Nor does his testimony provide any reference to a supernatural act as described in the Bible (think darkness over all the land during the day for 3 hours at Jesus'es crucifixion as described in Mark 15:33).
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


Again you seem to be ignoring the point. I was countering the point of their being NO evidence. I never claimed Flavius was a contemporary of Jesus's time period. I could probably point to some Gnostic sources but I suspect you will have the same issue with those as you have with the biblical ones. "Moving the goalposts" by requiring a contemporary non-biblical source is a credibility requirement of your own making.

That said I understand the point you are making in that if 3 days of darkness happened, someone should have certainly written about it. But the lack of survival of such an account isn't compelling enough on its own to completely dismiss out of hand that the account actually occurred as biblically stated.

I have stated and maintain that while evidence exists, it exists in a state of perpetual reasonable doubt. This, I believe, is to give you the option of logically saying you don't believe. The flip side is of course true, though I hardly expect you'll agree: That there is also an option of logically saying that you DO believe the biblical account.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1549626


I'll quote what you responded to again;


Please show 1 contemporary non-Biblical piece of evidence or reference even of any supernatural occurrence that is described in the Bible.


So you essentially gave me a reference which I never asked for. Even though you claimed I asked for it (see the part I bolded in your post). Oh and it was 3 days? I thought it was 3 hours out of my head? I thought the 3 days darkness thingie was in some end times prophecy? Or was it with Moses in Egypt?

Which is also why I kinda asked for ANY non-biblical reference to ANY supernatural occurrence described in the Bible... I agree not having references to 1 miracle might not be very reliable, but ultimately there just isn't any evidence of any of the miracles (OT or NT) in the Bible.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


The supernatural occurrence I alluded to with the Flavius quote was the resurrection. It simply wasn't contemporary, it was however non-biblical which is all I claiming (the fact that it was supernatural was implied and I thought self evident, the fact that it was contemporary wasn't).

I was quoting you with the 3 days of darkness thing and only for illustration purposes. I don't remember any reference to 3 days of darkness in association to the resurrection, just an earthquake, the empty tomb, a citing of an angel and the sighting of Jesus by multiple witnesses.

Most of the miracles in the bible are of a personal nature. I honestly don't expect many to have corroborating evidence.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22089462
Netherlands
12/05/2012 01:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Quote: This is what started so much chaos.


Matthew 10:34-35
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—



No, Jesus came to divide and so we are all divided, even whole families. We are divided as to Jesus Christ, Himself so that those who are 'for Him' are clearly recognized so that the 'wheat is separated from the chaff":

Matthew 3:12
12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”



"There are only two classes of people in the world in the sight of God, and both are mentioned in the text, which begins this paper. There are those who are called the wheat, and there are those who are called the chaff.

Viewed with the eye of man, the earth contains many different sorts of inhabitants. Viewed with the eye of God it only contains two. Man's eye looks at the outward appearance—this is all he thinks of. The eye of God looks at the heart—this is the only part of which He takes any account. And tested by the state of their hearts, there are only two classes into which people can be divided—either they are wheat, or they are chaff."

[link to www.gracegems.org]



Matthew 12:30

30 “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29140865


And people wonder what sane people have against religions 5a.

Divide, conquer and control is all what any religion wants.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29135854
Canada
12/05/2012 06:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
bump
Fèlix Misérable

User ID: 26591137
United States
12/05/2012 06:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
who cares what atheists think cuase they dont think good
Fèlix Misérable
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29135854
Canada
12/05/2012 06:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
who cares what atheists think cuase they dont think good
 Quoting: Fèlix Misérable


lolsign
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 24090746
United States
12/06/2012 10:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Wow. Some negative feedback here. Didn't mean to put some of you on the defensive. Something from nothing? How did gravity come into existence? Just happen?
NSF001

User ID: 28914713
United Kingdom
12/06/2012 11:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Wow. Some negative feedback here. Didn't mean to put some of you on the defensive. Something from nothing? How did gravity come into existence? Just happen?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24090746


Gravity exists between two bodies of mass. If the big bang is to be believed then there wouldn't have been any gravity per se before the big bang as there was only the singularity, after the big bang 'gravity' would exist as the attractive force between all bodies of any mass in the universe.
I don't think so,
he's up there with the others laying low,
vying with those who you've traded your life to to bless your soul,
Cat.Man.Deux

User ID: 29208567
United States
12/06/2012 11:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Trying to understand INFINITE concepts with a human brain is like trying to calculate Pi out to 500 decimal places with an abacus - 'taint gonna happen.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2144760
United States
12/06/2012 11:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
and also..while i am at it; the big bang theory DOES NOT Say there was nothing, it merely states that the universe was a incy- wincy tiny spec, that is all.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9094168


Yes, but back to the beginning. How did it all happen? What was the catalyst to ignite it all? Doesn't this point to a divine being? How can it all "just happen"?

I guess another question that stems from this is, given what we know (and don't know) Why do people outright refuse to believe that there is a God? I'm not on a Bible thumping mission here. I am simply trying to understand this. Seems like people need to revisit what "Faith" means.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24090746


You say "being", as if the universe as we know it now is RIPE with 'beings', I simply don't see how there are only these two arguments. The 'something' must be a "being", and the nothing must be a scientific zero. It is just a petty argument that can go nowhere based on how young of a species we are. Both of these arguments are probably wrong. As for the big bang, this is simply deductive mathematics, and as for creation, it is simply an idea, that mankind is so important in the universe that someone like us MUST have done it. We do not even have complete picture of the solar system yet, no less the universe! Evidence of this can be seen respectively between voyager 1's current position, and the near sightedness of measuring light. In the opinion of someone who favors neither a 'nothing', nor a 'divine something', I think the more we find, the stranger it will get. Something tells me not only our universe was birthed of a black hole, but that these are the engines that are creating universes. There are some obscure scientists that will agree with me. It's a fun thing to research if you have some spare time. The idea that a human invention like a 'god', is somehow relevant to what we find is space is just very narrow in my opinion. And for science to say anything is certain which they do not at this point, would also be very narrow minded. So that's where I stand as a human, not as an atheist, or a traditionist.
Sneetch

User ID: 14967850
United States
12/06/2012 12:01 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Trying to understand INFINITE concepts with a human brain is like trying to calculate Pi out to 500 decimal places with an abacus - 'taint gonna happen.
 Quoting: Cat.Man.Deux


Was just about to post this...

You're gonna hurt your brain trying to understand the idea that if there really is some omnipotent creator, that it just *is* and always will be.

Trying to imagine the "beginning" is even worse...
We were meant to live for so much more, have we lost ourselves?
ººOATºº
User ID: 43891947
United States
08/06/2013 01:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
According to you, in the beginning there was nothing. Absolutely nothing and from this nothing started something. Not sure what triggered the "something", but it started. Over time this "something" evolved into everything we see today. You, me and everything else.

What started the "something"? What is "nothing"?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24090746




Actually it's only Atheists that say this.

An Agnostic will tell you: I don't know and you don't either!


burnit
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 44523821
Canada
08/06/2013 02:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.
Wow. Some negative feedback here. Didn't mean to put some of you on the defensive. Something from nothing? How did gravity come into existence? Just happen?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 24090746


Yes.

overcap

News