+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 31

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Scientific Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Evidence is mounting against atheism.

    Here's a scientific argument for God as the creator of the universe.

    Last edited by Administrator; 06-29-2012 at 07:51 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Stow, OH SOL III
    Posts
    3,231

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    And here is a link to a series of 37 YouTube videos titled, "Why do people laugh at creationists", by Thunderf00t.


    Here is Part One;



    And here is the entire 3 hour version of, "The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism", by AronRa.



    And here are some YouTube channel home pages with the present video view counts;
    youtube.com/user/AtheismDebunked, AtheismDebunked (Cnance's link) - 168 Views.
    youtube.com/user/aingenesis, Answers In Genesis (YEC) - 109,022 views.
    youtube.com/user/discoveryinstitute, Discovery Institute (OEC) - 619,205 views.
    youtube.com/user/vatican, The Vatican - 7,026,866

    Totals for the above four websites;
    7,755,261 video views
    35,753 subscribers

    youtube.com/user/aronra, AronRa - 8,357,226
    youtube.com/user/thunderf00t, Thunderf00t - 43,479,819

    Totals for these two websites;
    51,837,045 video views
    222,803 subscribers

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Evidence is mounting against atheism.
    Lol, not according to those numbers.
    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. -C. Darwin

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    This site is very interesting, Cnance.

    Maybe they'll let you join.
    http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
    Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count... Robert Heinlein

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by GHOST DOG View Post
    This site is very interesting, Cnance.

    Maybe they'll let you join.
    http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
    Instead trying to find a distraction, why don't you evaluate the content of the video. As an example, what do you think about scientific ideas in the video relating to the big bang?
    Last edited by Cnance; 06-21-2012 at 11:48 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by nomaxim View Post
    And here is a link to a series of 37 YouTube videos titled, "Why do people laugh at creationists", by Thunderf00t.


    Here is Part One;



    And here is the entire 3 hour version of, "The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism", by AronRa.



    And here are some YouTube channel home pages with the present video view counts;
    youtube.com/user/AtheismDebunked, AtheismDebunked (Cnance's link) - 168 Views.
    youtube.com/user/aingenesis, Answers In Genesis (YEC) - 109,022 views.
    youtube.com/user/discoveryinstitute, Discovery Institute (OEC) - 619,205 views.
    youtube.com/user/vatican, The Vatican - 7,026,866

    Totals for the above four websites;
    7,755,261 video views
    35,753 subscribers

    youtube.com/user/aronra, AronRa - 8,357,226
    youtube.com/user/thunderf00t, Thunderf00t - 43,479,819

    Totals for these two websites;
    51,837,045 video views
    222,803 subscribers

    Lol, not according to those numbers.
    It is obvious you haven't watched the video. Instead of doing a demographic analysis of viewers, why don't you watch the video? I posted it for viewing not stupid comments about creationist or analysis of responses.

    I should have expected such replies from closed minded atheist.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Instead trying to find a distraction, why don't you evaluate the content of the video. As an example, what do you think about scientific ideas in the video relating to the big bang?
    I looked at it.....just a vid made by some christian apologists...some truths, some conjecture.

    Cnance, we both feel that there is a creator, however you wish to put the face of the god spoken of in the Christian bible on it, I prefer the logical side of the equation.....a creator as in Forces that are at work right now, and billions of years ago...impersonal, in that they care not for even one particle which it (they) constructed.

    You can prove the impersonality of these creative forces to yourself if you drop your religious bias, if only for a short time....when was the last time that you and your god had a real, personal interaction, like a visitation?

    If this happened, did god come to you as a "spirit" or in the flesh?
    ("Dreams" do not count, as they are irrefutably human creations.)

    When did your god intervene in the loss of life scenarios (earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) that are commonly visited on this planet?

    A Christian, or muslim "God" begs the question of what was the impetus for said being.

    Remember...if it exists anywhere, or at any level, it requires an impetus.

    As I stated to you before, if your god is a logical necessity for the creation of the universe, it means that there was a Primary Need for your god's creation beforehand in order to create our universe, meaning that a need, which would be the impetus for your god existed before your "God" existed.

    This would make logic and need the creators of your version of a god, since those two would need to exist prior to this "god."
    You state that your god is "eternal."
    So far this belief is only a human creation, a "rationalization," since there is no example we can find of "supernatural," or "eternal," anywhere we look, at any time that we looked.

    If you truly understand the scenario that I just gave to you then there is no way that you can believe that the creation Forces which did this great work are personal, except through an emotional desire for your version of a god of the bible to be personal, since simple basic logic would disallow it.
    Last edited by GHOST DOG; 06-22-2012 at 12:59 AM.
    Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count... Robert Heinlein

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Evidence is mounting against atheism.

    Here's a scientific argument for God as the creator of the universe.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ8uXidvwM4
    You're an idiot. That video boils down to this: we don't understand yet, so god did it.

    No, sorry. We don't know. That is NOT proof of god.

    Do you see?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    You're an idiot. That video boils down to this: we don't understand yet, so god did it.

    No, sorry. We don't know. That is NOT proof of god.

    Do you see?

    How thoughtful. Of course, you gave it a lot of consideration. Did you understand the argument about fine tuning, etc? Those scientific parameters are sound, you just don't understand them.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    How thoughtful. Of course, you gave it a lot of consideration. Did you understand the argument about fine tuning, etc? Those scientific parameters are sound, you just don't understand them.
    No, they are not. The "arguments" in that video are wrong.

    Theres a reason that the author of the blog and youtube channel allows NO COMMENTS.

    Cnance, that idiot is NOT a scientist. Why do you believe religious apologists rather than scientists?

    Cos you're a ing idiot

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Heres the point Cnance: you produce a youtube video, and demand a response to it, otherwise it must be true. You produced and article on the other thread from a christian apologist scientist which you demand acceptance as "the truth".

    No. I can do the complete opposite, cite articles and books and journals (and youtube vids - with open comments!) which show the complete opposite view.

    We both have articles and vids which contradict each other. SO WHICH SHOULD WE ACCEPT? Those saying fine-tuning is true, or those saying it's not?

    Simple - you are predisposed to believe the religious. I believe the scientists (regardless of their religion).

    You lose.

    http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html
    Final comments

    Some make the mistake of thinking that "fine-tuning" and the anthropic principle support supernaturalism. This mistake has two sources.

    The first and most important of these arises from confusing entirely different conditional probabilities. If one observes that P(F|N) is small (since most hypothetical naturalistic universes are not "fine-tuned" for life), one might be tempted to turn the probability around and decide, incorrectly, that P(N|F) is also small. But as we have seen, this is an elementary blunder in probability theory. We find ourselves in a universe that is "fine-tuned" for life, which would be unlikely to come about by chance (because P(F|N) is small), therefore (we conclude incorrectly), P(N|F) must also be small. This common mistake is due to confusing two entirely different conditional probabilities. Most actual outcomes are, in fact, highly improbable, but it does not follow that the hypotheses that they are conditioned upon are themselves highly improbable. It is therefore fallacious to reason that if we have observed an improbable outcome, it is necessarily the case that a hypothesis that generates that outcome is itself improbable. One must compare the probabilities of obtaining the observed outcome under all hypotheses. In general, most, if not all of these probabilities will be very small, but some hypotheses will turn out to be much more favored by the actual outcome we have observed than others.

    The second source of confusion is that one must do the calculations taking into account all the information at hand. In the present case, that includes the fact that life is known to exist in our universe. The possible existence of hypothetical naturalistic universes where life does not exist is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, which must be based on the data we actually have.

    In our view, similar fallacious reasoning may well underlie many other arguments that have been raised against naturalism, not excluding design and "God-of-the-Gaps" arguments such as Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" argument (in his book, Darwin's Black Box), and William Dembski's "Complex Specified Information," as described in his dissertation (University of Illinois at Chicago). We conclude that whatever their rhetorical appeal, such arguments need to be examined much more carefully than has happened so far to see if they have any validity. But that discussion is outside the scope of this article.

    Bottom line: The anthropic argument should be dropped. It is wrong. "Intelligent design" folks should stick to trying to undermine N by showing ~F. That's their only hope (though we believe it to be a forlorn one).

  11. #11
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    How thoughtful. Of course, you gave it a lot of consideration. Did you understand the argument about fine tuning, etc? Those scientific parameters are sound, you just don't understand them.
    Thistle is correct. This argument in this video is, Science doesn't yet have all the answers so, godditit.

    The Fine Tuning argument is a joke. It's saying the puddle was designed to hold just the right amount of water. It's an argument based on assumptions, not evidence. It's been debunked over and over.

    Lastly, this video DOES NOT present any evidence FOR god. All it attempts to do is, frame issues not currently known as the positive evidence for god....without actually having to present evidence for god.

    This is all evangelical, bible-babbler god-bots can do because they lack positive evidence for their mythical sky-fairy.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    =GHOST DOG;1196476]

    I looked at it.....just a vid made by some christian apologists...some truths, some conjecture.
    Cnance, we both feel that there is a creator, however you wish to put the face of the god spoken of in the Christian bible on it, I prefer the logical side of the equation.....a creator as in Forces that are at work right now, and billions of years ago...impersonal, in that they care not for even one particle which it (they) constructed.
    I don't believe God is at work in our world now. God was here on earth, the
    Bible is humans record of that visitation. I know you will never be convinced but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

    I have already stated my evidence from dreams. You have chosen to disregard all of what I have stated, inferring that I am either crazy or deluded. Sorry, I am neither, those dreams were as real as stated. Because all of you on scam.com are so biased there is no use discussing a valid claim for dreams. However, because I like to debate about God, so I'll continue, but from another perspective. My knowledge of science is sufficient to the task. So, I'll continue to fire back.

    You can prove the impersonality of these creative forces to yourself if you drop your religious bias, if only for a short time....when was the last time that you and your god had a real, personal interaction, like a visitation?
    You have a bad habit of telling me how to think. We've been through this before. I've already posted my dreams. It is useless to discuss them, I get only ridicule.


    If this happened, did god come to you as a "spirit" or in the flesh?
    ("Dreams" do not count, as they are irrefutably human creations.)
    How come your the final authority on all matters about interaction with supernatural beings?

    When did your god intervene in the loss of life scenarios (earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.) that are commonly visited on this planet?
    I see. Because of moral issues, you refute all possibilities of a God. If your recall I covered these topics. We are collateral damage from God creating the world for paradise during the dinosaur era. You know the rest of the story, I posted it several times.

    A Christian, or muslim "God" begs the question of what was the impetus for said being.
    Even though flawed by human hands, the Bible is humans only record of God's interaction with them. The Koran doesn't count, it is a plagiarized version. Allah is a pagan god. I know these ideas drive you crazy. You wont consider ideas that interfere with your bias.

    Remember...if it exists anywhere, or at any level, it requires an impetus.
    As I stated to you before, if your god is a logical necessity for the creation of the universe, it means that there was a Primary Need for your god's creation beforehand in order to create our universe, meaning that a need, which would be the impetus for your god existed before your "God" existed.
    I already answered that question. Remember? God created the universe to imprison Satan. I am wasting time with this. You have a closed mind.

    This would make logic and need the creators of your version of a god, since those two would need to exist prior to this "god."
    You state that your god is "eternal."
    So far this belief is only a human creation, a "rationalization," since there is no example we can find of "supernatural," or "eternal," anywhere we look, at any time that we looked.
    The Old Testament makes references to God's eternal nature. With your strong hate for religion, you'll never read it.

    If you truly understand the scenario that I just gave to you then there is no way that you can believe that the creation Forces which did this great work are personal, except through an emotional desire for your version of a god of the bible to be personal, since simple basic logic would disallow it.
    There you go again with your psycho religious babble.

    Simple logic would say I find emotional need for God because I want salvation. However, in reality, I know there is no salvation. If you recall, I've stated God was not happy when homo sapiens developed to become humans. One of my dreams was about God being unhappy because humans had turned his sacred grave for dinosaurs into a garbage pit. It is no use telling you why I believe what I do. You have a closed mind.

    Let's go back to science. I don't believe you'll every find a scientific argument to support your idea about natural forces. What natural forces? That is a illogical argument. Assuming there was a beginning (big bang), there must be an explanation for something coming from nothing.

    You claim scientist have solved the problem. Post those studies so I can review them. To date, I have found no scientific study that fulfills the criteria whereby matter created itself, or preconditions for such an event.

    It all goes back to "eternity." Since physical laws presuppose a time line for the universe, there must be a beginning. Here is where we come back to "something from nothing."

    The explanations is that only God, who is eternal, can create something from nothing.

    God, a spiritual being, created time, matter and energy, nonspiritual entities. He did with physical laws to imprison Satan. Time, matter and energy combine temporally, not eternally. God set up a time clock whereby Satan will cease to exist with the end of the universe.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
    Thistle is correct. This argument in this video is, Science doesn't yet have all the answers so, godditit.

    The Fine Tuning argument is a joke. It's saying the puddle was designed to hold just the right amount of water. It's an argument based on assumptions, not evidence. It's been debunked over and over.

    Lastly, this video DOES NOT present any evidence FOR god. All it attempts to do is, frame issues not currently known as the positive evidence for god....without actually having to present evidence for god.

    This is all evangelical, bible-babbler god-bots can do because they lack positive evidence for their mythical sky-fairy.


    Part of what you say is true, it promotes a religious vision. However, the science is sound. You say it has been refuted. Where? Post it!

    Most astronomers agree that the universe is finely tuned. I claim according to laws of probability those events could no occur by chance alone. So, you see, the issues are alive. You need to do more research.

    Maybe, if you could ever get over fits about how terrible religion is, you could think clearly.
    Last edited by Cnance; 06-22-2012 at 07:58 AM.

  14. #14
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Part of what you say is true, it promotes a religious vision. However, the science is sound. You say it has been refuted. Where? Post it!
    Here is just one. There are plenty of videos and articles.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-UIfkcgPY

    "...the Science is sound." Yes it is but, it goes past Science and makes assumptions...trying to transfer the credibility of the Science to the assumption. It's disingenuous at best and it's a logical fallacy.

    More later...heading to the gym.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Most astronomers agree that the universe is finely tuned.
    No. You found one christian apologist, and from that you claim "most" astronomers agree. Not true.

    When scientists do not know something ... they do not assume a supernatural cause.


    There are astronomers who believe the universe appears to be fine-tuned. Some of them believe it is. Some believe it isn't in fact, although it appears to be. Some dispute the whole premise. Of those who do say it appears to be "fine-tuned", some believe the cause is natural. And finally there are some who believe in the supernatural. YOU choose to believe ONE small category - the supernatural.

    You are dishonest. Again.

    Read the wikipedia article about fine-tuning. It does NOT say what you claim about fine-tuning. It is suggesting that the apparent fine-tuning has numerous possible causes. But you can only see one as a possible - the supernatural, ie god. That is NOT the consensus at all.

    We. Do. Not. Know.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Scientifc Evidence Refutes Atheism.

    I have already stated my evidence from dreams.
    I've heard you relate your dreams on here....and they speak of supernatural events, as most human dreams do.
    When did one of your "supernatural dreams" ever come true in our reality?
    Supernatural is just what the word means....."super," as in:
    super-


    a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, with the basic meaning “above, beyond.” Words formed with super- have the following general senses: “to place or be placed above or over”

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/super-
    Natural is just that; Natural. Super, placed before natural then means over and above that which appears natural.
    So far, all that we have ever had is only natural:
    nat·u·ral

       [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Show IPA
    adjective 1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

    2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

    3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.

    4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
    I posted this suggestion:
    Quote:
    You can prove the impersonality of these creative forces to yourself if you drop your religious bias, if only for a short time....when was the last time that you and your god had a real, personal interaction, like a visitation?

    You posted:

    Quote:
    You have a bad habit of telling me how to think. We've been through this before. I've already posted my dreams. It is useless to discuss them, I get only ridicule.

    "Telling you how to think" would look like this:
    Quote:
    Cnance, you're an idiot!
    Don't you know
    that this way of thinking is just wrong? You should change your whole way of thinking and be a thinker like me!
    You can prove the impersonality of these creative forces to yourself if you drop your religious bias, if only for a short time....when was the last time that you and your god had a real, personal interaction, like a visitation?
    (In fact, if I were to just using the word "idiot," it would imply that you don't know how to think.)

    My reply is a suggestion for you to think for yourself, temporarily going on a "fishing trip," to explore your options.
    I am not telling you HOW to think.

    How come your the final authority on all matters about interaction with supernatural beings?
    Oh, please....where do you get that I'm the final authority?
    I'm only the "final authority" on that which I've studied and understood for my life, Cnance.

    And I've been on that "supernatural path" like you are now, for a long time, and studied everything that was interrelated to this field, and there has never, ever, been sufficiently incontrovertible evidence pointing to any event belonging to the supernatural in our reality.

    If you have this incontrovertible evidence for the supernatural, please send it along with your next post, as we would all like to examine it.
    I see. Because of moral issues, you refute all possibilities of a God.
    When did a natural disaster become a "moral issue?"
    Or did your version of a god cause these poor folks to die, making the event his moral dilemma?
    We are collateral damage from God creating the world for paradise during the dinosaur era. You know the rest of the story, I posted it several times.
    The truth as I see it is that we are at the mercies of the universe and it's natural forces.....no more and no less.

    Even though flawed by human hands, the Bible is humans only record of God's interaction with them.
    Great point, Cnance.
    Which portions of the bible are indeed flawed, and which portions of the bible are not?
    Is this "pick and choose" time?

    Christianity supposes that the bible is the "word of god."

    Atheists propose that the bible isn't at all accurate, especially where it speaks of "divine intervention," or the supernatural events it relates.

    You state that portions of it are flawed.
    Simple equation: portions of your version of god are then flawed.

    I already answered that question. Remember? God created the universe to imprison Satan.
    Your thinking on this is flawed, Cnance, simply because it fails to deliver on the logic that we all live with.
    I am wasting time with this. You have a closed mind.
    On the other hand, have you ever been to the "well" that consistently delivers logic and reason?
    You've been in "Christianity land" for a long time, haven't you?
    Have you ever been to "Atheist, or Agnostic land," without the usual bias that your religious side brings, for a long spell?

    I pretty much know what Christians go through as in "believing" and calling it "faith" to clean it up, in order to justify the cause in their minds, Cnance.

    I've been to both camps, the Christian view of life, multiple times for my first 44 years, and the Agnostic view of it, for 20 years, or so....both for a very long time.

    Don't knock the Agnostic view unless you have been steeped in it for a long time, Cnance.
    The Old Testament makes references to God's eternal nature.
    "The Old Testament?"
    Is this one of the parts that are "flawed by human hands" or are we just not quite sure? So is this "pick and choose" time again?

    With your strong hate for religion, you'll never read it.
    Again...I only "hate" misinformation and stupidity, Cnance.

    Oh.....like all good Christians I've been all over the Christian bible, King James, Latin Vulgate, Catholic, etc.
    I even speak a little Latin.

    What natural forces? That is a illogical argument. Assuming there was a beginning (big bang), there must be an explanation for something coming from nothing.
    No. An "illogical" argument would be the one involving "supernatural" events, of which there is no proof of.
    Science can only go on what it discovers to be peer-reviewed, real, repeatable, and logical.

    Unlike religion, they just cannot add anything like the supernatural, which doesn't follow any of these axioms.

    They theorize about different known facts, and when they do this they only follow that which can be seen as mathematically correct, in any given scenario, or what must later be found out, once more facts are discovered.

    The Vacuum Fluctuation Theory has been described as working well in the light of what is known.
    We've debated with this theory on here, many times.
    This theory offers an "answer" that follows the mathematics and therefore the logic well.

    Comparing it to the religious view of creation, with it's conjecture and faith in the supernatural, is like comparing the Sears Tower to a mud hut.

    You claim scientist have solved the problem.
    No, I claim that science has solved SOME problems.

    I also claim that science will continue to solve more problems than religion ever will.
    Religion works in a shoe box, where science works in a universe.

    Science has given us an answer that shows to WORK as far as creation from "nothing."

    You've seen my postings on this vacuum fluctuation theory many times in the past.
    I suggest that if you want to review this old territory, you go back and re-visit my old stuff on your own.

    Post those studies so I can review them. To date, I have found no scientific study that fulfills the criteria whereby matter created itself, or preconditions for such an event.
    As I stated above, I've posted these studies in the past, however its high time that YOU post some studies on at least the "supernatural" so that you can advance your premise of "eternity" and "supernatural."

    Otherwise your premise will remain stagnant and effectively "dead."

    The explanations is that only God, who is eternal, can create something from nothing.
    IF your version of a Personal God spoken of in the bible was indeed logical, being a "Personal God," just like any event, would beg a logical impetus, that is a logical need for God to exist, this being a need to construct a universe for "Satan's imprisonment" (as you state) and us, his children to exist.

    So your version of god cannot be the FIRST impetus to exist, being that a LOGICAL NEED existed first...the "need" to create our universe.

    An Impersonal creator wouldn't have a need, or "agenda" (and no agenda for the universe to "be" has ever been found) to do anything as Energies or Forces interact and have interacted causing formation of more matter and energies...much more viable, observable, and reasonable than the former idea.

    It is already viewed in our existence to be this way everywhere we look, in that everything is "eating" everything else. (On the hunt for energy and taking it from everything else.)
    Last edited by GHOST DOG; 06-22-2012 at 02:16 PM.
    Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count... Robert Heinlein

Similar Threads

  1. Americans and Atheism....???
    By ohein56 in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2014, 12:35 PM
  2. Atheism and Mass Murder
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 07-26-2011, 10:21 AM
  3. Let's make Atheism a religion!
    By Lord_jag in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-14-2011, 08:18 PM
  4. Atheism is a lie
    By Cnance in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 06:56 AM
  5. Atheism discussion
    By svcguyhv in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 10:50 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •