Atheists: Why can't they see reason?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

There are two basic camps in Atheism:

1) Claims the universe is self-eternal.

Rebuttal :

The physical evidence shows the universe is past finite, isotropic, Euclidean, and not cyclical.

Rebuttal 2:

A self-eternal universe would be in a condition of infinite Entropy and therefore no work could be done in such a universe.

2) Claims the Universe came from nothing at all (lawrence krauss, Stephen Hawking, Neil Degrasse Tyson, etc)

Rebuttal: "From nothing comes nothing." - Rene DesCartes.

Rebuttal 2: Everything which begins to exist has a cause.

The Universe began to exist.

Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

Updates

+1 y

Read "Age of the Universe" on Wikipedia.

The Universe is past finite and BEGAN at the Big Bang. Therre was no universe before the Big Bang.

Updates

+1 y

Man, the numbskulls below me on this thread aren't even sure that they themselves exist.
"Cogito Ergo Sum."

The answer to the Atheists false accusation about the leaf on the ground is that God Created Trees too.

[TheSpaceGnome]

We do listen to reason, it's why we are atheists.

The universe is not finite, its infinite in age and size.

Explain to me what was before or is outside the universe, then explain why that is not part of the universe.

There is no way to explain that logically, the only logical way to define "universe" is by "universal", as in its everything everywhere to have ever existed.

If something cannot come from nothing, then there never was "nothing", therefor "nothingness" cannot exist, which means there is "something" everywhere infinitely, and if there is something, its automatically defined as part of the universe, no exceptions, making the universe infinite in size.

Secondly, since nothingness cannot exist, it means there was always something everywhere, which makes the universe have no begining (or end).


Omnipotence is a self contradicting concept because opposites exist:
Example: Can god create something so heavy, that god cannot lift it?
If yes, god is not omnipotent because god can't lift it, if no, god is still not omnipotent because god can't create it.
Opposites are limitations, so nothing can do "everything"

If the universe can't have a begining, and omnipotence can't exist, then the things that make something defined as a god are impossible, so a god can't have ever existed.

The only way around that argument is to reduce the word god to something more along the lines of a worshipped superhero/supervillian, and not some omnipotent creator of everything, but at that point you could call an artist or engineer or body builder or commander a god, because where is the line of power drawn to reach "godhood"?

You could argue that the universe itself is god, but thats just pointless nomenclature semantics, and would not change anything about describing it.

The other thing to think about is souls, souls are the idea that we can think/be aware while dead, but sensory organs, sleep, injury, and degenerative brain diseases all are evidence to the contrary. In fact needing to evolve a body at all is evidence to the contrary. If souls do just fine on there own with thought and sensations, then creating bodies would be pointless.

Then you have afterlife realms, but if the universe is infinite, only 1 "realm" exists, and without a body, you can't experience anything, so those are fictional too.

All religions are made up nonsense, trying to convince people otherwise is a fool's errand.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Also the arguments you presented in your posts can be applied to debunking god, because if the universe was subjected to said limits, so too would a god be subjected to them.

[TheSpaceGnome]

If you try to rebuttle saying a god has no limits, then you would have to concede that, if that were possible, then the universe would not have those limits either, since nothing can be more powerful than infinity.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I think its also worth noting by the way that "empty" space is not actually empty, so no one has ever witnessed nothingness anywhere ever, at any scale.

[dynamicyandere]

A lot of well-thought-out points.

There are two points that I’m wondering how you’d answer though, just so I get a better understanding of where you’re coming from.

How would you explain the Big Bang in regards to the universe rapidly expanding from a single point of origin. Would that not suggest that the universe had a beginning and was not always infinite?

Also, for the point on the paradoxical nature of omnipotence. I’ve heard people compare your argument for it to saying to something like God cannot make a square triangle, and therefore cannot be omnipotent.

Would that basically be saying, “Here is something that is impossible. Because God cannot do the impossible. God is not all powerful.”?

If there is an omnipotent being in control of all things, another thing that would impossible would be for God to simultaneously exist and not-exist. But, to say such a thing would be veering into technicalities and word-play. Like you can’t have red that is simultaneously green.

This only proves that the word omnipotent is contradictory in its inherent nature, as a definition. Like an impossible word almost.

But with words there are always the technical implications that can play out and there’s the intended meaning behind the word.

If the Latin had an alternative word to account for this inherent paradox, I’m sure the ancient Romans would have come up with a different term, had this argument been brought up in that time.

In terms of the intended use of the term omnipotent, I believe your argument doesn’t fully debunk the possibility of an all-powerful being existing, if we consider the intended meaning behind omnipotent and all-powerful.

But, you’ve made a solid and sound argument about the word itself, being inherently contradictory, when perceived and applied in a particular way.

[TheSpaceGnome]

@dynamicyandere

"How would you explain the Big Bang in regards to the universe rapidly expanding from a single point of origin."
It didn't, that did not happen, it is an idea, and expansion of things can happen locally or far away or really anywhere in the inifinite universe, but such things are no more special than a grenade exploding in a pool and its contents seperaring and being flung outward. No one thinks the grenade created the earth, why would a big bang create a universe? There was no singularity, and there are an infinite number of big bangs happening every millisecond out there in the infinite universe, but none of them made a universe, and the last one close enough to observe happened quite some time ago.

[TheSpaceGnome]

The omnipotence analogy I used means that in order for someone (god included) to do anything, they also have to not be able to do other things, because thats what allows them to do the thing in the first place.
If you want to be able to make something you can't lift, then it means you need to not have the ability to lift everything. Thats just an example, but it applies to everything, anything anyone can do limits them in doing other things. ie opposites prevent omnipotence, so omnipotence can't exist, so a god or divine plan can't exist.

"This only proves that the word omnipotent is contradictory in its inherent nature, as a definition. Like an impossible word almost."
No, it proves the concept of omnipotence existing is impossible, as opposites always exist. ie omnipotence is a paradox, and paradoxes cannot exist. something is either true or false, not both, shrodinger was an idiot.

My argument proves these things:
1. The universe is infinite in size and age.
2. Nothingness can't exist because matter and energy exists, and something cannot be created from nothing, and matter and energy are everywhere.
3. It's impossible to be able to do everything because opposites exist.
4. You need a body to experience anything.

That rules out the possibility of a god, alternate realms, afterlives, multiverses, time travel, souls, and a bunch of other things.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Matter/energy also can't be destroyed, only transformed, so it could not have been created, only changed, and matter/energy is always in a state of constant change and always has been, so there would be no defining point as the begining.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Lets take this to a different angle with my last point, and ask if god created the universe, what created god? If the answer is nothing, god always existed, then if something can always have existed, why not the universe? and why would a god be needed to create it? And if the answer is something created god, then what created the thing that created god, and what created that? and that? and that? infinitely backwards.

So no matter what, the answer is always infinity. If the answer is always infinity, and the universe is defined as everything to have ever existed anywhere ever, then the only answer is the universe always existed everywhere.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

1, Real Scientists say the Universe is not infinite. Edgar Allen Poe even famously wrote a proof that the Universe is not infinite, because if the Universe were both infinite and uniform, the night sky should be WHITE from an infinite number of stars.

2, Real Science says the Universe had a beginning. The currently think this finite beginning was around 13.8 billion years ago. I think its longer than that, but whatever the case the cosmic red shift shows it is past finite and the background temperature of the CMB is correctly predicted by Einstein to within half a degree Kelvin 50 years before it was discovered.

3, On top of that I have personal prophetic experiences, including seeing an Archangel tell me my sister's stage 3 lymphoma was cured, and the next day we got the new she was cured.

4, On top of that, I've had dozens of other prophetic visions come to pass, and no (other guy) they dont happen on their own. There iis an Almighty Being communicating with me.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I'm not even going to bother correcting you again. You're willfully ignorant.

[TheSpaceGnome]

1. Actually lots of scientists say its infinite, and those ones are correct, the others are not.
Edgar was incorrect as well about an infinite amount of stars making everything white, thats not what would happen because of how long it takes light to travel and how spaced apart things are.

2. Big bang theory is also incorrect, the surface brightness of near and far local galaxies are indentical, the universe isn't expanding.

3. and 4. Not interested in your hallucinations, go see a doctor about those. But it does explain your lack of logic, and your blind belief in their validity explains why you do not examine any popular hypothesis for logic flaws.

I don't need you to "correct" me "again", I wasn't wrong. You're just clinically insane and can't tell reality from delusions.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

And you are a two-bit LIAR. I can link you to the Standard Model of the Universe if necessary, and it is expanding at roughly 73km/s/megaparsec, and it's actually accelerating in its rate of expansion.

If you'd ever studied this information, you'd know that.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

No, The God need not be a Space-time continuum, so He need not be subject to the Laws of physics. In fact, the Laws of physics were Created by God. That's the point.

The Laws of physics are maximized and always work. There are no accidents in the Universe. They are logical, rational, ordered, mathematical. Even Entropy follows a mathematical law and can be predicted. This is what the ancient philosophers would refer to as a "Beauty" principle of the Universe.

God is not a space-time continuum. He is something else. Therefore he is not subject to the laws of space-time continuums.

God = The First Cause.

the First Cause must be self-eternal.
The First Cause must be uncaused.
The First Cause must be self-motivated.

The only thing that can be self-motivated is a Free Moral Agent.

Therefore God exists.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

By the way, the "Energy can't be Created or Destroyed" is proven wrong by the existence of Dark Energy. There is more and more Dark Energy being Created non-stop throughout the Universe every second. That's what not only drives the Hubble expansion constant, but is actually accelerating the Hubble expansion and constant.

Thus energy CAN be Created or Destroyed. It's happening every day and has been known aabout and published for over 25 years now.

[genericname85]

most atheists say "they don't know". atheists don't claim the universe is eternal or that it came from nothing (that's actually what christians say). and that's it. just cause you can make up "some" bullshit explanation doesn't mean you're right. it's more factually accurate to stick with "i don't know".

also you have big logical problems in both your rebuttals.

1: your statement is "The physical evidence shows the universe is past finite" nope. that's wrong. where did you get that information? cause that's not factually true and science does not actually say that. christians just love that idea, cause in order to be created, it has to have had a beginning but it's not the case as far as we know.

2: "The Universe began to exist." how do you know it had a beginning if it was always there?

[genericname85]

and also the position of atheism has nothing to do at all with the origin of the universe and everything. it is EXCLUSIVELY a postion on the existence of god (s). it litterally has nothing to do with anyhting else. why do you not understand that?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

God created the universe in a past finite time, you unqualified idiot. That's the point.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

1, Tjhe Standard Model of Cosmology says the Universe is 13.8 billion years old PAST FINITE.

2, The Standard Model of the Cosmology says the universe BEGAN 13.8 billion years ago and NOTHING (except the First Cause) pre-dated that event.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I'm not going to let you get away with that.

Either you are knowingly LYING, or you're just plain IGNORANT.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Liar. I can link to video wher eRichard Dawkins cites Lawrence Krauss and triest to "prove" that the Universe came from nothing at all. He got mocked by the audience. Then when he saw how wrong that was, he tried to redefine the word "Nothing".

Search youtube for debate video, "Richard Dawkins knows nothing about nothing?"

This is allegedly one fo the most educated Atheists alive today, and he and his entire camp repeatedly argue that everything came from absolutely nothing for no reason at all.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I'm not going to allow you to lie about the terms of discussion nor lie about all the bullshit the Atheists do in debates with real believers. It's completely ridiculous that you have the audacity to sit there and write that.

[genericname85]

you missunderstand everything about science intentionally just so your choosen delusion still makes sense.

1: the standard model of cosmology "knows" pretty exactly what happened 13.8 billion years in the past. we do not know what happened before that. that does not mean that nothing was before that. that's what you're for some reason assuming but there's no indication of it. the fact we don't know what there was does NOT mean there was nothing.

show me one scientific publication that can show that there was nothing before 13.8 billion years. if you can't show me, you're the liar here.

[genericname85]

and you can enrage all you want about the missunderstanding of science that you have. that STILL does not change the fact of what i previously said:

atheism has nothing to do at all with the origin of the universe and everything. it is EXCLUSIVELY a postion on the existence of god (s). it litterally has nothing to do with anyhting else. why do you not understand that?

[genericname85]

the intellectually honest answer tha scientists (that you're intentionally missunderstanding) give is that we know stuff up to a certain point an everything beyond that is speculation, not knowlegde. just like god is speculation not knowlegde. so claiming there is a god is a lie.

[genericname85]

the only way you can intellectually honestly talk about is in terms of believe not knowledge. that's why it's called "faith" not "facts".

[Usher55]

@genericname85 Do you not acknowledge the intellectual/smart design of your body?
2 Eyes to see, 2 Ears to hear, a Nose to breathe, a Mouth to eat/drink/talk, Teeth to chew your food, 2 Arms, 2 Hands, 5 Fingers ranging in specifics to fit human activities to perfection, 2 Legs, 2 Feet allowing you to balance your weight and stand straight, Glands, Spinal cord, Bones to form a solid base structure to the body, Muscles to allow movement of the bones, Nerves to transmit chemical signals from the brain to the muscles in order to achieve movement / sense about everything that happens to the body, a Digestive system, a Respiratory system, an Immune system, a Urinary system, an Excretory system, a Circulatory system, a Reproductive system, not to venture inside Each System and the organs consisting it.
A Brain: Consciousness, desire, free will, love, hate, envy, pride, anger, fear, dreams, memory, conscience, subconsciousness, and every other process that regulates our body.
Who designed all of that? Not 1 intelligent living being could deny the ingenious design of just the human body. Had one, just one, of these features disappeared/didn't exist - your body would stop functioning the wholesome way it was Meant to.
Are we merely a coincidence? The existence of Life itself utterly refutes that.

[genericname85]

@Usher55 do you not understand that facts don't care about your feelings? how you feel about "how oh so great and wonderous a body is" has nothing at all to do with the facts about it's origin.

and unlike the question with the origin of the univerese, we do absolutely 100% know the origin of life and our boies. and spiler: it's not god.

[genericname85]

spoiler*

[Usher55]

It's about thinking.
What created life and our bodies then? If your answer is Nature, do you not acknowledge that this Nature has intelligence and ingenuity to it?

[genericname85]

@Usher55 so i will say it is not hard to "imagine" an intelligent creator behind what we see. but the fact of the matter is that for all that we see there is actually a process that does not involve a creator at all. so while it's a pretty idea, it's not the truth.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

The Big Bang is the beginning of Time. There is nothing before the Big Bang except God.

That is the Standard Model, whether or not you admit that.

Before the Big Bang, there was no matter, no space, and no time. There was only God, the First Cause.

That is the Big Bang theory proposed by George Lamaitre, and it is still the Standard Model of Cosmology to this day.

[genericname85]

"There is nothing before the Big Bang" that's your missrepresentation of the science. the science does NOT say that. YOU say that, cause YOU need that to make your god make sense. and you can believe that. i don't care. but it's not evidently true. so claiming it is true is a lie.

[genericname85]

the science does NOT know whether there was something or nothing before the big bang. they don't know. and you don't know either. you're lying.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Entropy argument defeats your lies again.

Dr. Michio Kaku proved with a simple tray of Jelly Beans that "information" does not spontaneously self-organize due to Entropy. Not even with energy input.

The DNA code that makes your cells work is a base 64 computer code. It literally has start and stop commands for the Ribosomes to process the RNA into proteins. DNA makes so good of a computer that some scientists are trying to make DNA computers for humans to process calculations on.

Your belief that life exists by accident plus selection is pure insanity. I have never seen one macroscopic lifeform that could believably evolve through random chance.

[genericname85]

nothing of what yuo just said changes anything about the fact that WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THERE WAS SOMEHTING OR NOT BEFORE THE BIG BANK. you don't know that. i don't know that. science doesn't know that. and you keep adding a bunch of different nonsense to the discussion. doesn't matter. you're still wrong.

[genericname85]

and i'm gonna repeat: the position of atheism has nothing to do at all with the origin of the universe and everything. it is EXCLUSIVELY a postion on the existence of god (s). it litterally has nothing to do with anyhting else. why do you not understand that?

so from now on i will not discuss anything other than the existence of god with you. so all the points about dna, universe and whatever become completely moot. cause nothing og that is any proof for the existence of god anyway.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I am not lying YOU DUMMY.

I've told you I AM A PROPHET AND I KNOW GOD BECAUSE GOD TELLS ME THE FUTURE BEFORE IT HAPPENS.

i'm trying to prove by obvious principles to you ahead of time, because what's about ot happen is going to shock anyone who's honest.

You can die lost if you want to, I'd rather that not happen, but if you choose to keep rejecting God I'm not going to bat one eye or shed one bloody tear for you when you bust Hell wide open.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

THEN DIE AND ROT IN HELL YOU DUMBASS.

GOD MEANS 'THE CREATOR OF REALITY'

what the hell else am I supposed to use for evidence to you except the orgin of the Unverse and Life?

You are a damned moron. The worst I've ever seen.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Are you honestly that stupid? Or are you retarded or something? Or are you just trolling me and baiting me?

[genericname85]

i meay be stupid but i am not stupid enough to fall for lies. and you sir are a liar. that is not an insult like the words you're using for me. that is a statement of fact cause you demonstrated that by lying to me multiple times today.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I don't lie, and you're about to find out.

When the 155mph hurricane hits North Carolina, this year in what remains of the Hurricane Season, on or before October 17, you are going to have to admit that I had supernatural knowledge of the future.

Then I am going to tell you I GOT THAT IKNOWLEDGE FROM GOD AND IT DIDN'T COME FROM THE TOOTH FAIRY.

[genericname85]

so you can't show that i lied then. which means you calling me an habitual liar is just another lie.

i'm gonna predict that you are gonna take a shit within the coming 4 days. if you are gonna take a shit is that proof for atheism being correct? no? then you understand how insanely stupid your statement is now.

i am done with your insults and lies. i guess when god becomes your friend, truth becomes you enemy. you hate to see it. it is what it is. hope you will be able to stop lying one day. not hopefull that it's gonna happen soon but you can work at it. bye.

[purplepoppy]

Do you actually know what half the words your using actually mean or are you just throwing a load together in the hope of befuddling people hence winning the argument?

I

[SeekerOfTruth007]

As a matter of fact, my English vocabulary is above 99th percentile.

You need an education.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

This is considered High School level physics.

If I was talking to a PhD I'd use PhD terminology and discuss Quantum Mechanics too, although I'm less versed in QM than Relatiivity.

[OfDeath]

Bullshit Wade.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

@OfDeath I used to debate Relativity and QM on physforums. com and physorg. com. I'm not lying

You go on believing your own lies, you hear.

I'll believe the God i personally know by name.

[OfDeath]

Typing on a forum is not really a proper debate.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

@OfDeath

If i got to debate you people in front of a live audience with formal rules of debate, you'd all be mocked by the audience within 5 minutes of me opening my mouth.

[OfDeath]

Unlikely. The audiences of live debates with formal rules are generally very polite and reserved. Besides, I would only be making valid points.

[lightbulb27]

how would you describe your God without using the God's name?

[Anonymous]

It's pretty clear God exist regardless of what you wanna call him.

[OfDeath]

First of all Wade, atheists see reason. Which is why they understand that there is not sufficient reason to actually believe the imaginary concept of gods is a part of actual reality.

Secondly, atheists cannot be divided into two categories. You have committed a false dichotomy fallacy.

Thirdly, there is actually no reliable scientific claim that the universe didn't have a prior state to the big bang. We can extrapolate back to just after the big bang. There is no ruling out that there was no prior state.

And finally, even if the current state of the universe was caused, what that cause was is undiscovered and to try and pigeonhole god into that gap is a god of the gaps and an argument from ignorance fallacy.

The idea of a creator god is also deeply flawed philosophically and is a reductio ad absurdum.

[dynamicyandere]

I believe intelligent design makes the most logical sense.


Whether or not they believe in a creator from one of the monotheistic religions or not, intentional design, even if it means we’re in a computer simulation, makes more sense than wildly complex organisms and ecosystems intricately working together in harmony, as a result of 100% random chance.


Plus, the law of entropy causes things to go from order to disorder—not the other way around.

[TheSpaceGnome]

You don't understand the subjects you're talking about.

[dynamicyandere]

@TheSpaceGnome

I have a bachelor’s in science and was a biology major before I switched to philosophy and then psychology. I’ve taken 400-level bio classes and understand evolutionary theory.

I’ve also taken a course on science vs pseudoscience taught by Peter Boghossian, who travels the country to advocate against religion and faith in favor of rational thought, logic, and empirical science. I got an A in his class.

Despite understanding conclusions of secular philosophical views based on empirical science, I don’t dismiss the possibility of alternative conclusions based on premises that are not bound by modern empirical science.

And rightly so, as there are many phenomena that can’t be explained by science using the tools we have available today.

Does that mean we should be dismissive of everything we can’t understand? No. The very concept of science is the pursuit of knowledge. So to be dismissive of valid hypotheses without corresponding research to strongly suggest evidence to the contrary would demonstrate a lack of intellectual integrity.

I’m not saying that my opinions are right and everyone else’s opinions are wrong.

I understand that everyone can agree to disagree.

Especially on topics that are inconclusive.

If you have differing opinions, you are definitely free to share.

I rather enjoy philosophical discussions, even with people with opposing views.

But, please bear in mind that if you want to be respected in a debate, it’s best to not lead with logical fallacies like an ad hominem attack.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Your degree and education is wasted on you if you think thats ad hominem and not a direct criticism of your statements.

You literally do not understand what you are talking about, you memorize it, you attempt to explain it, but you don't understand it, and you SHOULD understand it after getting your degree.

"I believe intelligent design makes the most logical sense."
It actually makes zero sense since its verifiably impossible, the universe had to have always existed, so any creationism hypothesis is always going to be wrong, and matter/energy interactions are far too complex to be predictable all the time without omnipotence, which is self contradictory because opposites exist, and thus is also impossible, so you cannot plan it all out at all, let alone intelligently.

"Whether or not they believe in a creator from one of the monotheistic religions or not, intentional design, even if it means we’re in a computer simulation, makes more sense than wildly complex organisms and ecosystems intricately working together in harmony, as a result of 100% random chance."
No, it does not, in fact you have that completely backwards, a simulation makes zero sense if you look at how simulations work, whereas biochemical interactions leading to life and evolution is observed fact.

[TheSpaceGnome]

"Plus, the law of entropy causes things to go from order to disorder—not the other way around."
There is no such thing as disorder, just order. You only think disorder exists because certain kinds of order disrupt what you think are beneficial structure types, but even the most seemingly random things are not actually random, nothing is ever random. Look into chaos theory, everything is actions and reactions, there are strict rules to how things function and interact, but because you do not understand them, or cannot fathom their immense complexity, you percieve it as random.

The way the universe functions, this is how it always functioned. it's not order to disorder, its complex to complex x infinity. There never was nothingness, there never was a begining, there will never be an end, and the universe is infinite in size.

[dynamicyandere]

@TheSpaceGnome

Oxford’s Dictionary definition of ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

You said, “You don't understand the subjects you're talking about.”

That sounds like you were directing that statement towards me and not the philosophical stance I was making. That was not a response to the views I shared. Rather, an insult to my intelligence.

Later on you did address why you disagree with my statements. But before, without any other context or any further words you can’t deny that what you did was ad hominem.

Also, for the answer I gave to the OP, it was just in the format of casual discourse, sharing a personal opinion with the OP. If I were to structure things as a philosophical argument, I would have structured my post much differently.

Anyway, there are so many points that have been brought up, we could go for hours discussing every point.

There are some points that I’d enjoy going into (e. g. With ‘biochemical interactions leading to life and evolution’ I could go into micro-evolution vs macro-evolution and the concept of natural selection and how that has been observable but things like macro evolution are not observable so we are forced to rely on theory.)

But honestly, I’m sensing a degree of hostility off of you, so I’d rather have that discourse with someone that has a calmer and less condescending demeanor.

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.

[TheSpaceGnome]

"You don't understand the subjects you're talking about.” is meant literally, as in what you said was incorrect, so you should attempt to understand them.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

@TheSpaceGnome you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I passed Physics with an A+ at collegiate level and passed Biology with an A+ as well.

[jshm2]

Because atheists are slaves to doubt and crass cynicism.

They operate on opinions, and have no interest in faith. They are social vampires in that regard. It's not enough for them to be sad, unenlightened, cretins, they want you to join their misery.

[Redstang88]

Well, yeah. I outgrew faith a long time ago

[artgorgeous]

I disagree with the statement that universe began to exist. We don't know that. Maybe it always existed.

[strateguy632]

universe has a defined AGE. read science books

[artgorgeous]

@strateguy632 this age was defined after the big bang. No one knows what was before and how long it lasted.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Entropy argument shoots that down. If the Universe were past-infinite it would be in a condition of maximum entropy and no work could be done.

It doesn't matter how much you try to nest reality or regress the past, at some point there must be a self-eternal FIRST CAUSE, and the Universe itself IS NOT IT. Alan Guth et al provced in 2008 that "no space-time continuum can ever be self-eternal..."

Try studying real science. You atheists on this thread so far look like clueless morons, fabricating bullshit out of thin air.

[artgorgeous]

Ok, so if atheists are so stupid, where did god come from then? Self created out of nothing to create a universe?

[artgorgeous]

You just can't comprehend the hypothesis that universe can be infinite.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

No, t's been proven WRONG by real physicists and mathematicians.

Einstein thought the unvierse was static, self-eternal, and infinite, and he was proven WRONG by Edwin Hubble.

This has been known with 100 percent certainty for over 100 years now.

Vector Spaces do not and cannot exist in reality except as Abstractions, therefore no space-time continuum can ever be infinite = Alan Guth et al 2008.

[artgorgeous]

Maybe Hubble is wrong. Didn't you have this idea? We don't have enough knowledge to say who is right and who is wrong. The universe is expanding and it has to expand into something.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

It is expading because Dark Energy is adding to the background of "empty" space-time.

2, No it doesn't. Therhe is nothing beyond the Universe except the First Cause. The Universe expands because Dark Energy is converted into more space-time fabric.

Read the wikipedia article.

[artgorgeous]

In terms of universe, nothing is also something.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

No, it's not. Dummy. Nothing is nothing. Stop trying to redefine basic words and logic. That's called "Lying".

[artgorgeous]

I've noticed through my life experience that as soon as person starts insulting and getting personal, it indicates the lack of arguments from the opponent. Especially those who believe in God gets super triggered and agressive. Just like you.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Check the history. It was you and the other atheists who threw the insults. The bot ai choice is literally insulting my intelligence and calls me a fanatic.

[RealMarek]

This is what I mean when I say everybody who thinks things through with sufficient depth makes assumptions about existence at some level. Science can never replace philosophy.

[Redstang88]

Yet you claim it was all caused by “god” which is eternal and came from nothing.

Hows that different?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Eternal does not mean came from nothing. You just contradicted yourself.

Eternal means there was never a time when God didn't exist.

[msc545]

Causality implies the existence of time. The current thinking in cosmology is that time actually may not have existed prior to the big bang.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Atheists are morons. No need to pay them attention.

[strateguy632]

good echo back.

[lightbulb27]

because they don't want to?

[Yannae]

Could you DM me?