Happy Atheist Forum

From my personal virtual library :

Arguments for the Existence of God

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-go ... god-t5.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-t5.htm)

 five good reasons to think that God exists:

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

Maibe we start with nr.1

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... t-t132.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-t132.htm)

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html)

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence. that cause was God.

Quote1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

Maibe we start with nr.1

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono) ... t-t132.htm

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html)

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence. that cause was God.

Might I ask what all this is based on? I read your personal library and all I got out of it was "god makes since because I have no other explination." Its like if I said Dr. Suess created the world and makes since of the moral values in the world because he wrote childrens books.

Quote4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

I dissagree with all 5, but IMHO these two really need some explaining.

QuoteA wide variety of arguments exist which can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or subjective. Although rarely studied scientifically given the generally held belief of religion and science as non-overlapping magisteria,[1] the question of the existence of God is subject to lively debate both in philosophy[2] â€" the philosophy of religion being almost entirely devoted to the question â€" and in popular culture.

And thus points to the whole thing being man made. "Each generation has to create its own imaginative conception of God." To quote Karen Armstrong author of A History of God.

You then list 6 different ways to interpret a belief in a god. The Personal God of monotheism is obsolete (hence dead), as is the remote Supreme Being introduced by religious philosophers. A more plausible alternative is the God of mysticism, experienced as a reality that lies beyond human concepts, much the way that great art or music is felt.
This said being is nothing to consume or dedicate your life too. No one here has any problem with a belief in any god, but good luck convincing anyone you can prove its existance.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"five good reasons to think that God exists:

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

Maibe we start with nr.1

These exact points were used in a debate between William Lane Craig and Doug Jesseph (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/jesseph-craig0.html). I think Jesseph covers the atheist argument.

This is "evidence"?

Surely you don't mean that.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdtimes.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fairplane7.jpg&hash=67420c8001b2046944d6d6e54a1b91241d805460)

I just wanted to say that I'm impressed that you could remember what credentials you used for registration after being gone for two years.

Where did you first hear about this "God?" Who told you about it?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"From my personal virtual library :

Arguments for the Existence of God

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-go ... god-t5.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-t5.htm)

 five good reasons to think that God exists:
1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

1. If you have no basic understanding of the scientific view of prehistory, I suppose God does make more sense than big words.
2. This assumes no other forms of life, based upon alternative biochemistry, are possible. Also, humans evolved and adapted to the universe, not the other way around.
3. No sane individual needs a God to think murder, rape, and stealing is wrong.
4. That is assuming any of those events were not made up.
5. Explain.

QuoteThe Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence. that cause was God.

*Sigh*

...

1. What caused God?
2. What? God had no cause. He was always there.
3. So the universe needs a cause and God doesn't?
3. Well yeah!
4. And the universe hasn't always been here? You are actually certain of this?
5. Yeah!
6. So you kind of made the assumption that the theoretical Big Bang is a single event and not a part of an eternal cosmic cycle?
7. Yes, but Genesis 1+2.
8. You also assume that the first God you stumbled upon in society is the actual creator rather than the other 10,000 gods worshiped by humans?
9. Yeah, the Bible says he is and that the others aren't.
10. Oh, OK, I guess you are right then.

FYI, Angel logged in at 1:19pm forum time....so, unless you just want to respond for the sake of random readers,  you may not want to waste any more time responding until Angel decides to respond.

Quote from: "G-Roll"Might I ask what all this is based on? I read your personal library and all I got out of it was "god makes since because I have no other explination."

Do you have a better explanation ?

Quote from: "G-Roll"

QuoteA wide variety of arguments exist which can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or subjective. Although rarely studied scientifically given the generally held belief of religion and science as non-overlapping magisteria,[1] the question of the existence of God is subject to lively debate both in philosophy[2] â€" the philosophy of religion being almost entirely devoted to the question â€" and in popular culture.

And thus points to the whole thing being man made.

how are you so sure about it ?

QuoteYou then list 6 different ways to interpret a belief in a god. The Personal God of monotheism is obsolete (hence dead), as is the remote Supreme Being introduced by religious philosophers.

why do you think so ?

QuoteA more plausible alternative is the God of mysticism, experienced as a reality that lies beyond human concepts, much the way that great art or music is felt.

How are you sure the God of the bible cannot be experienced ? Even yesterday, at the service at my church, a prophet of the church saw a young men attending, and said : Today God freed you to be killed, and only a few days ago, you were close to be arrested. The young men went to the pulpit, and accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and saviour. He admitted he was a trafficker. I can tell you many wonders, God is doing today. God can be experienced, today.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Where did you first hear about this "God?" Who told you about it?

i heard already during my childhood about the God of the bible.

Quote from: "Ellainix"1. If you have no basic understanding of the scientific view of prehistory, I suppose God does make more sense than big words.

please explain why you think so.

Quote from: "Ellainix"2. This assumes no other forms of life, based upon alternative biochemistry, are possible. Also, humans evolved and adapted to the universe, not the other way around.

In fact, according to science, life is only possible, based on carbon chemistry. Silicon is not a possible alternative. It is however very unlikely, Carbon to be formed in space by chance.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... e-t191.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tune-constants-close-examination-one-by-one-t191.htm)

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on

how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium.

* The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long. Taken from God the Evidence by Patrick Glynn

therefor, the universe was tailored to host life.
 

Quote3. No sane individual needs a God to think murder, rape, and stealing is wrong.

And exactly that conscience is a evidence of a creator, which put this sence of conscience in our heart.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-go ... t-t186.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/evidence-of-god-the-moral-argument-t186.htm)

The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.

In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind doesâ€"rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.

To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.

Quote4. That is assuming any of those events were not made up.

that is correct. And there are strong reasons to think so.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5351 (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351)

Quote5. Explain.

If you're sincerely seeking God, God will make His existence evident to you. The Bible says, "draw near to God and he will draw near to you" (James 4.8). We mustn't so concentrate on the proofs that we fail to hear the inner voice of God speaking to our heart. For those who listen, God becomes an immediate reality in their lives.

Quote1. What caused God?
2. What? God had no cause. He was always there.
3. So the universe needs a cause and God doesn't?
3. Well yeah!
4. And the universe hasn't always been here? You are actually certain of this?
5. Yeah!
6. So you kind of made the assumption that the theoretical Big Bang is a single event and not a part of an eternal cosmic cycle?
7. Yes, but Genesis 1+2.
8. You also assume that the first God you stumbled upon in society is the actual creator rather than the other 10,000 gods worshiped by humans?
9. Yeah, the Bible says he is and that the others aren't.
10. Oh, OK, I guess you are right then.

http://creation.com/if-god-created-the- ... reated-god (http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god)

angelosergipe, some of your responses were preaching rather than an attempt to back up your position with reason.  Please familiarize yourself with HAF's rules, we do not allow preaching from anyone.  Thank you.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "G-Roll"Might I ask what all this is based on? I read your personal library and all I got out of it was "god makes since because I have no other explination."

Do you have a better explanation ?

Making stuff up is a poor method of discovering truth.  A better option would be "I don't know."

Quote from: "angelosergipe"In fact, according to science, life is only possible, based on carbon chemistry. Silicon is not a possible alternative. It is however very unlikely, Carbon to be formed in space by chance.

This is not true, we simply do not know of any silicon based life at this time.  It is, however, a possibility.

Quote. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning.

The short and sweet response is...of course the universe looks fine tuned, we evolved to fit it!

The problems with your interpretation of of Weinberg's data was already discussed here at HAF:  viewtopic.php?f=43&t=3820&p=49278&hilit=Weinberg#p49278 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=3820&p=49278&hilit=Weinberg#p49278)

Here is a thread from ATT in which I participated which directly discusses this subject:  http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta ... pic=7891.0 (http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=7891.0)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages51.fotki.com%2Fv1547%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1239895198733-vi.gif&hash=bc670d2895ff0bbf6d65bcb605942301216845d2)

God or Gods exist only where proofs and evidence of their existence is given.  If God or Gods actually exist then God or Gods should have no problem in providing proofs and evidence that they actually exist.  Any evidence or proofs to the existence of God or Gods that come from a second hand source is invalid, since the God or Gods who gave evidence or proofs of their existence to an individual did not provide proofs or evidence universally.

  And since the bible has been proven to contain lies, the bible has been invalidated as divinely inspired or as being the infallible truth of an infallible God.

Quotehow are you so sure about it ?

 â€œModern Israeli archeologists now know for certain that Moses never parted the Red Sea and never divinely received the Ten Commandments. Why? Because Moses never existed.  In fact, the ancient Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt, and there was never any mass “exodus.”
The recently discovered truth is that Israeli Hebrew culture arose locally from nomadic shepherds and goatherds around 1200 BC. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua, and even Moses were merely myths created for a very ancient time when Israeli Hebrew culture did not yet exist. Apparently they were created to justify command of the land. Military conquest was then the accepted local standard for ownership in the Middle East, and if the military conquest was at the command of God.”
You can find/read all about this in The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman. Who sought out academically to study the Old Testament and Israeli Hebrew culture.

Also There is tons of both external and internal evidence that immensely popular verse of John 7:53-8:11 “let him cast the first stone was “inserted or snuck into the bible.”
So, Moses wasn’t real, never received the 10 commandments, the book of Exodus is untrue, the book of Genesis is untrue or at least unreliable,  and how much of the new testament is just “inserted latter on?” And this book full of non since is the sole source of faith other than an “emotional connection.”

Quotewhy do you think so?

Because god does not take part in ANYONES life. To state that god is a supreme being and can do whatever he wants needs to explain; why was Jesus crucified if god can do whatever he wants? Why is sin even in existence? Why does revelation have to happen the way it is written, why not just smite the devil and be done with it? Why is there a need to have no evidence for a supreme all powerful creator ect…ect…

QuoteHow are you sure the God of the bible cannot be experienced ? Even yesterday, at the service at my church, a prophet of the church saw a young men attending, and said : Today God freed you to be killed, and only a few days ago, you were close to be arrested. The young men went to the pulpit, and accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and saviour. He admitted he was a trafficker. I can tell you many wonders, God is doing today. God can be experienced, today.

Cops are good at getting confessions too. Are they divine? I emotionally experienced the movie P.S. I Love You. Cried like a bitch (I can’t believe Im admitting this on the internet.) An emotional experience is just that. Its not evidence for an existence of any kind of god.

The mistake that you make is that you interpret individual and personal proofs as being universal proofs and evidence.  It is not, I am a theist because I was given the proofs and evidence I needed to believe in a God, but these are personal and individual proofs and evidence.  They are valid only as far as the individual is concerned.  Personal and individual proofs and evidence cannot be used to establish the existence of a God beyond the individual that the proofs and evidence was given to.

  The proof and evidence that was given to me so that I might believe in a God, is valid only to me.  It is not valid to any other person.  You can give testimony from now until doomsday and this means nothing.  If God or Gods can give proofs and evidence to me or you then they can give evidence and proofs to all others.  The fact that they do not proves that they are not universal Gods wanting universal followers.  All it means is that these Gods want selected followers and are not interested in those that they do not give evidence or proofs to.

  Only God or Gods can give evidence or proofs of their existence, you cannot nor can I give proof or evidence of these Gods beyond the personal level, but you are a Christian and feel the need to cram your God no matter how false down every ones else’ have you ever considered following another God, it seems you guys were scraping the bottom of a polluted and corrupted barrel when you came up with your God.  There has to be hundreds of better choices to pick from besides a God who would rape a 13 year old virgin.
 

QuoteThe mistake that you make is that you interpret individual and personal proofs as being universal proofs and evidence

Is that not the xian claim? That there god is universal?

QuoteIt is not, I am a theist because I was given the proofs and evidence I needed to believe in a God, but these are personal and individual proofs and evidence. They are valid only as far as the individual is concerned. Personal and individual proofs and evidence cannot be used to establish the existence of a God beyond the individual that the proofs and evidence was given to.

Fair enough I suppose. Just as no god exist for me individually because of a lack of individual proof and evidence.

QuoteThe fact that they do not proves that they are not universal Gods wanting universal followers. All it means is that these Gods want selected followers and are not interested in those that they do not give evidence or proofs to.

They sound so picky

Quotebut you are a Christian and feel the need to cram your God no matter how false down every ones else

What I basically said in my other post to the OPer

Quoteit seems you guys were scraping the bottom of a polluted and corrupted barrel when you came up with your God. There has to be hundreds of better choices to pick from besides a God who would rape a 13 year old virgin.

I would imagine its kinda hard to copy and paste prophecies and come up with something good.

To  G-Roll

  I have no intentions of arguing God with an Atheist.  For Atheists God nor Gods exist, I grant this with open arms.  I argue with Christians there is no point whatsoever for me to argue with an Atheist.  Your right God nor Gods exist, simple where no evidence or proofs exist to prove God or Gods exist then no God or Gods can exist.  Now please let me play with the Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals.  It is them that I wish to debate.

  As I have stated in the American Atheist blog consider me the theist attack dog.  My purpose in life is to attack the Theist Christian views and to discredit and invalidate them.  I cannot attack or argue with Atheist views for Atheist views are correct.  So please let me do as my God wants me to do and that is to tear the Christian religion down to it’s lying and deceiving foundation and invalidate all of it’s claims to righteousness, and God given authority and power.  That is what I do and do well.  

I cannot fight Atheists, they are right.  So please let me have my little pleasures of attacking the hell out of the Christian beliefs and doctrines.  Please pretty please.
 

QuoteSo please let me do as my God wants me to do and that is to tear the Christian religion down to it’s lying and deceiving foundation and invalidate all of it’s claims to righteousness, and God given authority and power.

i like your god.

Yea thats one of the things that I like about him to.
 

Quote from: "god"It's like those miserable psalms, they're so damned depressing...

About angel's response stating that morals must have been placed into our hearts by a god -- says who?  It is just as likely that, as a people, the human races conscience and subsequent morals were developed through evolution to preserve the human race.  If everyone thought that murder was a-okay, we wouldn't exist today.  Also, if morals were set in place by a god, why do some people seem to lack them?  Why would  a loving and merciful god choose to create a man with the power to decimate others' lives and feel no form of regret?  The answer would be that morals are a work of evolution, or maybe not evolution, but something other that allowed humans to develo conscience, and people that lack them are a negative mutation from the standard..

-Mike

Quote from: "fixed it for ya"five [strike:1dqxpexk]good[/strike:1dqxpexk] reasons to think that God exists:

1. [strike:1dqxpexk]God makes sense of the origin of the universe.[/strike:1dqxpexk] I'm too lazy and unintelligent to bother to learn about the Universe. I simply cannot make sense of all this goddamn science. I'll stick with Goddidit to answer my questions.

2. [strike:1dqxpexk]God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.[/strike:1dqxpexk] Well shit... Wouldn't ya know it?? I need air, water, and food to survive. They all just happen to be on Earth for me, and me alone!! Goddamn I must be special! Thanks again god!!

3. [strike:1dqxpexk]God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.[/strike:1dqxpexk] I'm too stupid to be able to tell right from wrong. I'm too stupid to know what is good for me and what is bad for me. I guess I'll let someone else tell me what to do. Goddamnit... not having to exercise any form of personal responsibility is the way to go!!

4. [strike:1dqxpexk]God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.[/strike:1dqxpexk] I'm fuckin' scared to die. I really really don't want to die. Goddamn these stories of it being better and perfect after I die sure do put my incredibly small and pathetic mind at ease. It sure would suck if this life was all I got and I wasted it thinking for myself and trying to live it.

5. [strike:1dqxpexk]God can be immediately known and experienced.[/strike:1dqxpexk] I love LSD.

QuoteThen I have something for you  

Hi Folks, I am a famous Angelologist  I follow Angelo whereever he goes in the Internet and made a list of many forums wherein he evangelizes. Here it is  
And i wish you a happy new year, dear happy atheist forum  

so you are some kind of e-stalker? should i not feel creeped out? cause i do.....

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"In fact, according to science, life is only possible, based on carbon chemistry. Silicon is not a possible alternative. It is however very unlikely, Carbon to be formed in space by chance.

This is not true, we simply do not know of any silicon based life at this time.  It is, however, a possibility.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin- ... s-t122.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/can-life-only-arise-from-carbon-based-molecules-t122.htm)

 "Chemistry is one of the better understood areas of science. We know that you just can't get certain atoms to stick together in sufficient number and complexity to give you large molecules like carbon can. You can't get around it. And you just can't get other types of liquids to dissolve as many different kinds of chemicals as you can with water. There's something like half a dozen different properties of both water and carbon that are optimal for life. Nothing else comes close. Silicon falls far short of carbon.

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"God or Gods exist only where proofs and evidence of their existence is given.

the more science does evolve , the more it does provide us the possibility to analyze and think about the scientific facts. There is no advantage to atheists over theists about the provided scientific evidence whatsoever. We study the same material. The difference relies  in the interpretation of the discoverings. Some believe, the presented and studied facts do constitute evidence against the existence of a all powerful creator, others do come to a opposite  conclusion. So what ? All we have, are personal opinions and beliefs. The ultimate truth cannot be proven. So to say, theists do not have evidence of the existence of God, is unreasonable. We would have no evidence, if any thing would exist. Then God might exist, but any thing else. But we would not be here as well to think about this.
But we are here. We exist. The universe exists. Therefore, we have ground to think about the God hypotheses. We have evidence to think about whatever might be the origin of our universe. And God seems to me the best explanation based on a series of reasons.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...l#2enrRx2nk469 (http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...l#2enrRx2nk469)

At this time in history, there is more evidence demonstrating the existence of God than at any time in the past. Much of that evidence is presented on this site. In addition, there are missionaries throughout the world proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ and the salvation that He offers as a free gift. Although the gift is "free," it will cost you your sin, selfishness, and pride. Since none of these character traits are allowed into heaven, those who insist upon holding onto these traits cannot enter into heaven, but must be separated from God in a place called hell. Therefore, those who go to hell do so voluntarily, preferring hell to complete submission to a holy and just God.

1. We know, the universe had a beginning, thus must have a cause.2. We know , the universe is finely tuned to life. 3. We know, the existing bio-chemistry, specially carbon, is very unlikely to evolve by chance. There must have been very special, unlikely circumstances, carbon to arise.
4. Life only comes from life. Abiogenesis has been understood as very unlikely, almost impossible , to happen. There must have been a guided process to create life. DNA is a code. A code is always result of a mind. there is irreducible complexity, the existence of sex cannot be explained through evolution. So also human language, our consciousness, and our intelligence.
we have morality. We know instinctively, what is right, what is wrong. Men through all ages, and all ethnic groups, believed in God in some way and form,
we have the revelation of the bible with its prophecies, and contundent revelation of God, we have the appearence of christ, and his ressurrection, we have personal experiences with God, like miracles, revelations, dreams, etc. the argument of beauty. God is the best explanation why everything exists, rather than nothing.

QuoteAnd since the bible has been proven to contain lies, the bible has been invalidated as divinely inspired or as being the infallible truth of an infallible God.

please provide the proofs, the bible lied.

Quote from: "G-Roll"

Quotehow are you so sure about it ?

 â€œModern Israeli archeologists now know for certain that Moses never parted the Red Sea and never divinely received the Ten Commandments. Why? Because Moses never existed.  In fact, the ancient Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt, and there was never any mass “exodus.”
The recently discovered truth is that Israeli Hebrew culture arose locally from nomadic shepherds and goatherds around 1200 BC.

you are outdated with your assertions.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bible-c ... t-t239.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bible-christianity-f6/biblical-archaeology-evidence-of-the-exodus-from-egypt-t239.htm)

QuoteBecause god does not take part in ANYONES life. To state that god is a supreme being and can do whatever he wants needs to explain; why was Jesus crucified if god can do whatever he wants?

because this was his plan of salvation of humanity.

QuoteWhy is sin even in existence?

because God did not want to create robots, which would do always exactly what he programmed them to do. He wanted free beings, with the ability to make own decisions. This incorporates also risks.

QuoteWhy does revelation have to happen the way it is written, why not just smite the devil and be done with it? Why is there a need to have no evidence for a supreme all powerful creator ect…ect…

the evidence is right upon the front of your eyes. See our earth, and the universe, and ask yourself, if it could have been self created.

QuoteCops are good at getting confessions too. Are they divine? I emotionally experienced the movie P.S. I Love You. Cried like a bitch (I can’t believe Im admitting this on the internet.) An emotional experience is just that. Its not evidence for an existence of any kind of god.

There are many ways, God to reveal himself to people. He has given me many times evidence through personal experiences of his existence.

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"The mistake that you make is that you interpret individual and personal proofs as being universal proofs and evidence.  It is not, I am a theist because I was given the proofs and evidence I needed to believe in a God, but these are personal and individual proofs and evidence.  They are valid only as far as the individual is concerned.  Personal and individual proofs and evidence cannot be used to establish the existence of a God beyond the individual that the proofs and evidence was given to.

  The proof and evidence that was given to me so that I might believe in a God, is valid only to me.  It is not valid to any other person.  You can give testimony from now until doomsday and this means nothing.  If God or Gods can give proofs and evidence to me or you then they can give evidence and proofs to all others.  The fact that they do not proves that they are not universal Gods wanting universal followers.  All it means is that these Gods want selected followers and are not interested in those that they do not give evidence or proofs to.

  Only God or Gods can give evidence or proofs of their existence, you cannot nor can I give proof or evidence of these Gods beyond the personal level, but you are a Christian and feel the need to cram your God no matter how false down every ones else’ have you ever considered following another God, it seems you guys were scraping the bottom of a polluted and corrupted barrel when you came up with your God.  There has to be hundreds of better choices to pick from besides a God who would rape a 13 year old virgin.
 

the existence of us, and the universe, is evidence to all mankind of Gods existence. No individual and personal experience needed to understand this fact.

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"To  G-Roll

  I have no intentions of arguing God with an Atheist.  For Atheists God nor Gods exist, I grant this with open arms.  I argue with Christians there is no point whatsoever for me to argue with an Atheist.  Your right God nor Gods exist, simple where no evidence or proofs exist to prove God or Gods exist then no God or Gods can exist.  Now please let me play with the Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals.  It is them that I wish to debate.

  As I have stated in the American Atheist blog consider me the theist attack dog.  My purpose in life is to attack the Theist Christian views and to discredit and invalidate them.  I cannot attack or argue with Atheist views for Atheist views are correct.  So please let me do as my God wants me to do and that is to tear the Christian religion down to it’s lying and deceiving foundation and invalidate all of it’s claims to righteousness, and God given authority and power.  That is what I do and do well.  

I cannot fight Atheists, they are right.  So please let me have my little pleasures of attacking the hell out of the Christian beliefs and doctrines.  Please pretty please.
 ;)

Quote from: "Mike M."About angel's response stating that morals must have been placed into our hearts by a god -- says who?  It is just as likely that, as a people, the human races conscience and subsequent morals were developed through evolution to preserve the human race.  If everyone thought that murder was a-okay, we wouldn't exist today.

in the animal world, many animals kill other animals, and still most do survive.

QuoteAlso, if morals were set in place by a god, why do some people seem to lack them?

each one of us has a free will. We can do wrong things, but our inner light will remember us, that we did something wrong. And we do not need to be teached to understand it.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-go ... t-t186.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/evidence-of-god-the-moral-argument-t186.htm)

Commands are like this; commands can’t exist without something else existing that commanded them.
The moral argument seeks to exploit this fact; If moral facts are a kind a command, the moral argument asks, then who commanded morality? To answer this question, the moral argument suggests that we look at the importance of morality.
Morality is Ultimately Authoritative
Morality is of over-riding importance. If someone morally ought to do something, then this over-rules any other consideration that might come into play. It might be in my best interests not to give any money to charity, but morally I ought to, so all things considered I ought to. It might be in my best interests to pretend that I’m too busy to see my in-laws on Wednesday so that I can watch the game, but morally I ought not, so all things considered I ought not.

QuoteWhy would  a loving and merciful god choose to create a man with the power to decimate others' lives and feel no form of regret?  The answer would be that morals are a work of evolution, or maybe not evolution, but something other that allowed humans to develo conscience, and people that lack them are a negative mutation from the standard..

-Mike

and how should we have developed self consciousness ? and the ability of thinking and speaking ? the language cannot have been evoluted.
We need to think, to be able to speak.

angelosergipe, Mark is also a theist...so some of what you said was kinda preaching to the choir.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"In fact, according to science, life is only possible, based on carbon chemistry. Silicon is not a possible alternative. It is however very unlikely, Carbon to be formed in space by chance.

This is not true, we simply do not know of any silicon based life at this time.  It is, however, a possibility.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin- ... s-t122.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/can-life-only-arise-from-carbon-based-molecules-t122.htm)

 "Chemistry is one of the better understood areas of science. We know that you just can't get certain atoms to stick together in sufficient number and complexity to give you large molecules like carbon can. You can't get around it. And you just can't get other types of liquids to dissolve as many different kinds of chemicals as you can with water. There's something like half a dozen different properties of both water and carbon that are optimal for life. Nothing else comes close. Silicon falls far short of carbon.

I don't think a book called "case of a creator" is the most reliable scientific source.  The same wiki article referenced in that forum post states the following (note wiki isn't a scientific source either but is at least subject to public scrutiny via the editing process):

QuoteThe most commonly proposed basis for an alternative biochemical system is the silicon atom, since silicon has many chemical properties similar to carbon and is in the same periodic table group, the carbon group.

QuoteEven so, biogenic silica is used by some existing Earth life, such as the silicate skeletal structure of diatoms. This suggests that extraterrestrial life-forms may have silicon based structure-molecules and carbon based proteins for metabolic purposes, therefore enabling the ability to feed on a rather common resource on a terrestrial planet like Earth for building up the silicon based part of their body.

It is also possible that silicon compounds may be biologically useful under temperatures or pressures very different from the surface of a terrestrial planet, either in conjunction with or in a role less directly analogous to carbon.

A. G. Cairns-Smith has proposed that the first living organisms to exist on Earth were clay minerals - which were probably based on silicon.

I think the above is enough to establish that is is a possible basis for life even if it is not necessarily probable.  So I think my previous statement stands other than apparently being partially wrong about there not being any current life forms that silicon.

Quote from: "Regens Küchl"Hi Folks, I am a famous Angelologist  :idea:
And i wish you a happy new year, dear happy atheist forum ;)

here some help to update your list:

http://www.uni-protokolle.de/foren/viewt/250807,60.html (http://www.uni-protokolle.de/foren/viewt/250807,60.html)

http://www.focus.it/Community/cs/forums ... 51147.aspx (http://www.focus.it/Community/cs/forums/thread/351147.aspx)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162088 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162088)

Quote from: "Whitney"I don't think a book called "case of a creator" is the most reliable scientific source.  .

so how about Guillermo Gonzalez (born 1963 in Havana, Cuba)  astrophysicist ? the cited words are his.

Can life only arise from carbon based molecules ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin- ... s-t122.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/can-life-only-arise-from-carbon-based-molecules-t122.htm)

Silicon is the element most like carbon (it is directly beneath carbon on the periodic table), a fact picked up by more than one science fiction writer. But the silicon-silicon bond is extremely weak, and will fall apart in contact with water, for instance. A more likely possibility is an silicon-oxygen backbone to the molecule. The oxygen-silicon bond is strong, it is what defines sand, and a range of compounds based on this system, silicones, are manufactured in this world. Whether they could encompass the complexity required for life is impossible to say, but I would not rule it out. The problem with a silicon-oxygen world is; what is the driving force? Carbon based life can be divided between oxidizers (animals burn food to produce carbon dioxide) and reducers (plants use carbon dioxide in photosynthesis). Silicon based life does not have this potential, and would presumably more closely resemble fungi. While there may be lifeforms that eat the silica-fungi, they would be 'low energy' lifeforms, without the strength to move around.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"in the animal world, many animals kill other animals, and still most do survive.

You don't see pack animals attacking/killing members of their pack unless it is to correct bad behavior (much like how we punish criminals only other animals don't have ways to build jails)

QuoteWe can do wrong things, but our inner light will remember us, that we did something wrong. And we do not need to be teached to understand it.

If that is the case, then why do morals vary across time and cultures?

Quoteand how should we have developed self consciousness ? and the ability of thinking and speaking ? the language cannot have been evoluted.

It certainly could have evolved.  Here's something you can listen to that gives a overview of evolutionary psychology.  You can also scroll down for some notes on the program.  http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows ... anMind.htm (http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/EvolutionoftheHumanMind.htm) (the talk starts around 2:30 if you want to skip the 'i'm an ape man' music)

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Silicon based life does not have this potential, and would presumably more closely resemble fungi. While there may be lifeforms that eat the silica-fungi, they would be 'low energy' lifeforms, without the strength to move around.

He seems to agree that silicon life is possible.  I never stated it had to be able to move.

Quote from: "Whitney"If that is the case, then why do morals vary across time and cultures?

basic morals do not change. Even people of the most remote tribes do know, that kill other people, lie , etc. is bad.

QuoteIt certainly could have evolved.  Here's something you can listen to that gives a overview of evolutionary psychology.  You can also scroll down for some notes on the program.  http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows ... anMind.htm (http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/EvolutionoftheHumanMind.htm) (the talk starts around 2:30 if you want to skip the 'i'm an ape man' music)

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin- ... ss-t70.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/how-to-explain-the-evolution-of-human-consciousness-and-self-awareness-t70.htm)

Of course Darwinians think that consciousness came into being via random mutation and selection. But this is not because we have any specific ideas about the evolution of consciousness per se.

Leonard D. says in his latest comment that
"Science has little understanding of what consciousness is, how it works, or what it is for. So it seems unfair to expect Darwinians to have any specific theory of how it evolved."

Yet they do not even know if it evolved in the normal evolutionary, biological sense. They just assume this, as you note. Would it not seem equally unfair to label any alternative views of what consciousness is, or what its purpose is, as outside the realm of rational thinking or even scientific inquiry? Leonard D. implies this and many others more aggressively demand that such alternative thinking be disregarded altogether.

Quoteyou are outdated with your assertions.

im outdated. ill actually read what you wrote tomorrow. its bed time here.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"basic morals do not change. Even people of the most remote tribes do know, that kill other people, lie , etc. is bad.

I guess that means you are unaware of cannibalistic tribes who thought it was acceptable to kill people, not to mention all the human sacrifices many religions have made to appease the gods.

 I'll accept that to lie is universally looked down upon even though there are theoretically cases where it would be better to lie (like if some crazy person said to me "accept jesus right now or 100 kids will die" I'd put on a wonderful performance of how I saw the error of my ways and now believe in jesus).  

What are the other "basics" in your opinion?

QuoteOf course Darwinians think that consciousness came into being via random mutation and selection. But this is not because we have any specific ideas about the evolution of consciousness per se.

You didn't listen to the audio so I don't see the need to read your link.  We are trying to establish the possibility of consciousness evolving (which you said wasn't possible).  The audio I provided was enough to establish it as possible and that it is a field of scientific study.

If you just want to state your views without researching counterpoints this isn't the right forum for you.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "G-Roll"

Quotehow are you so sure about it ?

 â€œModern Israeli archeologists now know for certain that Moses never parted the Red Sea and never divinely received the Ten Commandments. Why? Because Moses never existed.  In fact, the ancient Hebrews were never enslaved in Egypt, and there was never any mass “exodus.”
The recently discovered truth is that Israeli Hebrew culture arose locally from nomadic shepherds and goatherds around 1200 BC.

you are outdated with your assertions.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bible-c ... t-t239.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/bible-christianity-f6/biblical-archaeology-evidence-of-the-exodus-from-egypt-t239.htm)

QuoteBecause god does not take part in ANYONES life. To state that god is a supreme being and can do whatever he wants needs to explain; why was Jesus crucified if god can do whatever he wants?

because this was his plan of salvation of humanity.

QuoteWhy is sin even in existence?

because God did not want to create robots, which would do always exactly what he programmed them to do. He wanted free beings, with the ability to make own decisions. This incorporates also risks.

QuoteWhy does revelation have to happen the way it is written, why not just smite the devil and be done with it? Why is there a need to have no evidence for a supreme all powerful creator ect…ect…

the evidence is right upon the front of your eyes. See our earth, and the universe, and ask yourself, if it could have been self created.

QuoteCops are good at getting confessions too. Are they divine? I emotionally experienced the movie P.S. I Love You. Cried like a bitch (I can’t believe Im admitting this on the internet.) An emotional experience is just that. Its not evidence for an existence of any kind of god.

There are many ways, God to reveal himself to people. He has given me many times evidence through personal experiences of his existence.

i suppose i have an equal effort for your answers...  

Quotebecause this was his plan of salvation of humanity

no it wasnt

Quotebecause God did not want to create robots, which would do always exactly what he programmed them to do. He wanted free beings, with the ability to make own decisions. This incorporates also risks.

he didnt create anything because he isnt real. so i guess if there is free will then there is no plan, and shit just happens. that would make him mysterious.

Quotethe evidence is right upon the front of your eyes. See our earth, and the universe, and ask yourself, if it could have been self created.

i know, i took high school biology. myself says yes it could have been self created.

QuoteThere are many ways, God to reveal himself to people. He has given me many times evidence through personal experiences of his existence.

[/quote]
no he doesnt.

Quote from: "G-Roll"i know, i took high school biology. myself says yes it could have been self created.

everything , that begins to exist, has a cause. Only the universe doesnt....???
what is your base to make this claim ?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"2. We know , the universe is finely tuned to life

...as compared to what other universes?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "G-Roll"i know, i took high school biology. myself says yes it could have been self created.

everything , that begins to exist, has a cause. Only the universe doesnt....???
what is your base to make this claim ?

On what basis do you claim that god doesn't need a creator?  How do you know that the universe began to exist? We can only go as far back as the Big Bang with our research but don't know what might have been the situation before that.

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"2. We know , the universe is finely tuned to life

...as compared to what other universes?

it doesnt need any comparison to come to this conclusion.

Quote from: "Whitney"On what basis do you claim that god doesn't need a creator?

Something can only begin to exist, it time exists. Time was created with the Big Bang. Prior the Big Bang no time existed. So the origin of our universe must be timeless, i.e. without a beginning, and without a end. It just existed in a timeless dimension.

QuoteHow do you know that the universe began to exist? We can only go as far back as the Big Bang with our research but don't know what might have been the situation before that.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... g-t199.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/evidence-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning-t199.htm)

et’s say you come into a room containing me and a bunch of your other pals, and you find a steaming cup of Starbucks coffee on the table. Being the thoughtful individual that you are, you ask, “Does this belong to anyone?”
To which I reply, “It’s been there for the last month.”
Well, you’d know immediately I was wrong or lying (probably lying). Why? Because the coffee wouldn’t still be hot if it had been there for a month; it would be room temperature.
That’s the second law of thermodynamics in action. This law states that everything continually moves from a state of order to disorder and that heat and energy dissipate over time. This is a law that has been verified by proof after scientific proof and has never been shown to be wrong.
Now let’s apply this law to the universe, just as cosmologists have. If the universe were eternal, it would have gone cold and lifeless long ago. The stars would have burned out. Planets would have broken up into clouds of dust. And even the black holes would have ceased vacuuming the universe of unsightly stars and planets.
When you see flaming suns and scorching meteors, in other words, you’re looking at a steaming cup of coffee that over infinite time would have long since gone room temperature. Since the universe is still full of pockets of heat and energy, it cannot be eternal. Who would have thought heat would be such a helpful clue? And that is just the half of it.

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm (http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm)

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages108.fotki.com%2Fv1540%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2FTHIS_thread-vi.jpg&hash=2ac2215c89ca85e19f07e46877bb06c416fb130f)

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Something can only begin to exist, it time exists. Time was created with the Big Bang. Prior the Big Bang no time existed. So the origin of our universe must be timeless, i.e. without a beginning, and without a end. It just existed in a timeless dimension.

 Time is a human concept.  It is no more tangible then the deity you are trying to promote.  When we start to count the age of the universe we start from the earliest point we have detected so far which is the Big Bang.  That is the arbitrary point we start from.  Saying that time began to exist and that proves god is like saying our calender starts at Jesus's birth and that proves he exists.  You are just wrong.  If we wanted to we could start counting the age of the observable universe a billion years before the big bang.  There is nothing stopping us from doing it.  We just choose not to, we have no reason to.

Then I bet there is going to be an ssertion that unlike every other thing in the universe, god does not need a creator, a beginning etc, because he is god. Special pleading fallacy go!

Also

QuoteIt just existed in a timeless dimension.

Any evidence fo this assertion? Any proof that timless dimensions exist? Even a definition for what a timeless dimension actually is?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Something can only begin to exist, it time exists. Time was created with the Big Bang. Prior the Big Bang no time existed. So the origin of our universe must be timeless, i.e. without a beginning, and without a end. It just existed in a timeless dimension.

 Time is a human concept.  It is no more tangible then the deity you are trying to promote.  When we start to count the age of the universe we start from the earliest point we have detected so far which is the Big Bang.  That is the arbitrary point we start from.  Saying that time began to exist and that proves god is like saying our calender starts at Jesus's birth and that proves he exists.  You are just wrong.  If we wanted to we could start counting the age of the observable universe a billion years before the big bang.  There is nothing stopping us from doing it.  We just choose not to, we have no reason to.

I am pretty sure time exists as more than a human construct, it is a quantity that separates events, in some ways like space (You can clap at one end of a room, and I the other, or you could clap, wait 10 seconds and clap again in the same place, both claps within the sets are separated by a measurable quantity). More evidence can seen by the experiment where atomic clocks were flown round the earth in planes travelling with and contra to the Earth's rotation, after the flight they had recorded different amounts of time passing, time is very much a real, physical thing in the universe.

Also, I don't think you could start measuring time before the big bang, as there would be nothing to measure. To measure time, you need to measure two events, find the time that separates them, and then define a unit from that (analogous to measuring two points, finding the distance between them, and choosing your metre or whatever from that distance). As far as we tell, there were no events before the big bang, making time impossible to measure back then, in fact, we don't have any evidence of time itself even existing before the big bang. I disagree that it is an arbitrary point to start counting from, it does not work in comparison to the Jesus argument, as there were years before Jesus, we know that, the same cannot for sure be said about the big bang.

The trouble with contemplating time is the same trouble as contemplating the outside of Plato's cave: we're in it. Our entire existence is steeped in and determined by our concept of time. Try imagining the geometric angles that Lovecraft describes: obtuse angles that act like acute ones; stairs leading up that take you down; etc. Our minds are not formed to work like that.

This reminds me of the Necker cube:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edge.org%2F3rd_culture%2Fthaler_sendhil08%2Fimages%2Fimage004.png&hash=9cefd3b5bb14e65447104924cc167f3070e8eea5)

There are three possible ways you can "see" the cube.

• Pointing up and to the right
• Pointing down and to the left
• As a two-dimensional object formed by connecting two squares at their corresponding vertices

We can't actually see the first two at the same time. Our minds don't work like that. The human brain is, for all its splendor, a rather mish-mash jumble of wires and connections, what engineers often call a kluge. Time, not corresponding with space but an integral aspect of space itself, cannot simply be compartmentalized and boiled down. SSY is correct in that time is only measurable when there are two distinct events by which to measure it. This is, in atomic clocks, done by measuring the rate of decay of isotopes (I believe they're isotopes, anyway; atoms, either way). If there are no events, then time as we understand it does not exist. At zero degrees Kelvin literally nothing is moving. It is absolute zero. There is no decay, there are no identifiably separate events. Thus, at zero degrees Kelvin, within that system, there is no time. This is also true for "before" the Big Bang (a misnomer to begin with and originally a term of derision) as there were no separate events or objects by which to measure time: everything was one, a singularity.

Yes, this is when creationists or evolution-deniers break out that old chestnut, "So what made the singularity change if there is no creator?" Two things come to mind: first, that's the Kalam cosmological argument and it's been proven wrong more times and in more ways than I care to list; second, I don't know, but I think it's a safe bet that it wasn't this guy:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages47.fotki.com%2Fv1588%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2FGod-vi.jpg&hash=b9920767f1dd15cca565302c22d1a83a82556ca9)

If you honestly want to learn about the beginnings of the universe in a way that doesn't rely on superstition and stories aimed at comforting, check out Mark Whittle's lectures on Cosmology. Here's a short bit:

[youtube:4jx06qkc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tskhe760oyo[/youtube:4jx06qkc]

Quote from: "SSY"I am pretty sure time exists as more than a human construct, it is a quantity that separates events, in some ways like space (You can clap at one end of a room, and I the other, or you could clap, wait 10 seconds and clap again in the same place, both claps within the sets are separated by a measurable quantity). More evidence can seen by the experiment where atomic clocks were flown round the earth in planes travelling with and contra to the Earth's rotation, after the flight they had recorded different amounts of time passing, time is very much a real, physical thing in the universe.

What we consider time is just the motion of atoms and objects.  We've understood for decades that speed and gravity has an effect of what we perceive as time.  In reality speed and gravity are just affecting the object and atoms and photons.  It's slowing them down (Except for the photons of light >.< of course) which by our perception is slowing down time.  Because time is a human concept.  We see things moving slower then we think they ought to around a black hole so it's explained that time is slowed down when what is actually happening is the forces at work for the black hole is making matter, and atoms, slow down.  I'm not really sure how else to explain this.  

Quote from: "SSY"Also, I don't think you could start measuring time before the big bang, as there would be nothing to measure. To measure time, you need to measure two events, find the time that separates them, and then define a unit from that (analogous to measuring two points, finding the distance between them, and choosing your metre or whatever from that distance). As far as we tell, there were no events before the big bang, making time impossible to measure back then, in fact, we don't have any evidence of time itself even existing before the big bang. I disagree that it is an arbitrary point to start counting from, it does not work in comparison to the Jesus argument, as there were years before Jesus, we know that, the same cannot for sure be said about the big bang.

What is stopping me from counting backwards from the Big Bang?  We really don't know that there was nothing before it.  We know that empty space really isn't empty (matter and anti-matter are constantly being created and destroyed) how do we know this wasn't the case before the big bang?  There may not be something significant to start to measure from but say I wanted to start counting backwards from 2010 and go back to 1 billion years before the big bang?  What is to stop me?  What is to stop me from saying that I like that point as my starting point better then the generally accepted Big Bang starting point?  Yes we typically measure time from point to point starting at an event.  There may not be a big event to start from but if I want to start from that point, does not having an event really invalidate it?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"2. We know , the universe is finely tuned to life

...as compared to what other universes?

it doesnt need any comparison to come to this conclusion.

How do you figure that?  If the processes that have led to the rise of life on this planet are simply innate properties of this universe - it's like saying water was "specifically engineered to have three states", how can you say this universe was "fine tuned" when you have nothing to compare it against?  What basal state or null do you base this conclusion against?  Otherwise the claim is baseless.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"2. We know , the universe is finely tuned to life

...as compared to what other universes?

it doesnt need any comparison to come to this conclusion.

It does if you want to be logical.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Whitney"On what basis do you claim that god doesn't need a creator?

Something can only begin to exist, it time exists. Time was created with the Big Bang. Prior the Big Bang no time existed. So the origin of our universe must be timeless, i.e. without a beginning, and without a end. It just existed in a timeless dimension.

Actually, scientists have just arbitrarily placed t=0 at the Big Bang; that doesn't necessarily mean that prior to it there wan never any time (aka movement).  Time is simply a tool of measurement used to explain how objects move in relation to another.  A unit of time is completely arbitrary too.  Time doesn't actually exist as it is not a thing...just like a mile doesn't actually exist in any tangible way; it's just something we made up to better understand the world around us.

So again, how do you claim that a god doesn't need a creator AND how do you know all that exists naturally is not eternal?

(hint, you don't know just like everyone else...no one knows how everything started.  What you are trying to do is called God of Gaps)

QuoteNow let’s apply this law to the universe, just as cosmologists have. If the universe were eternal, it would have gone cold and lifeless long ago. The stars would have burned out.

If you were thinking like a cosmologist you wouldn't be making this argument.  YOu simply don't understand the 2nd law.  Here's a explanation link that I know you won't read because you are closed-minded and don't actually care about the truth:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html)

QuoteCan we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

New research has oppened up the possibility of bubble universes (a multiverse theory).  So, while nothing is conclusive yet it leaves open the possibility of infinite existence.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Something can only begin to exist, it time exists. Time was created with the Big Bang. Prior the Big Bang no time existed. So the origin of our universe must be timeless, i.e. without a beginning, and without a end. It just existed in a timeless dimension.

 Time is a human concept.  It is no more tangible then the deity you are trying to promote.  When we start to count the age of the universe we start from the earliest point we have detected so far which is the Big Bang.  That is the arbitrary point we start from.  Saying that time began to exist and that proves god is like saying our calender starts at Jesus's birth and that proves he exists.  You are just wrong.  If we wanted to we could start counting the age of the observable universe a billion years before the big bang.  There is nothing stopping us from doing it.  We just choose not to, we have no reason to.

If you want to dismiss science, you can start to believe in fairy tailes.

angelosergipe has been given a warning.

reason:

You cannot copy paste huge chunks of text as your own without putting it in quotes and providing a link to the original source.  Linking to the forum that links to the original source is not acceptable.  This is called plagiarism and is not only against HAF rules but is intellectually dishonest.


Almost everything s/he is writing is a copy paste from that forum s/he is fond of.  AND that is a copy paste from the original source.  This is probably why the discussion isn't going well...typically not using your own words indicates lack of knowledge on a subject.

Angelosergipe, from this point on every time I notice you have copy pasted from anywhere without proper citations or if all you do is copy paste quotes you will be given a warning.  Warning 3 gets you banned for a week and you are already at 1.

Quote from: "Squid"How do you figure that?  If the processes that have led to the rise of life on this planet are simply innate properties of this universe - it's like saying water was "specifically engineered to have three states", how can you say this universe was "fine tuned" when you have nothing to compare it against?  What basal state or null do you base this conclusion against?  Otherwise the claim is baseless.

the life permitting range of over 120 constants is in a determined limit. If the values are outside that range, life cannot evolve.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... se-t31.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm)

In his best- selling book A Brief History of Time, Hawking writes:

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium , or else they would not have exploded." [A Brief History of Time, p. 125] A minor difference in the electron's charge and stars wouldn't burn. There would be no burning sun at the centre of our solar system to provide life-supporting heat and light. Also there would be no supernova explosions to produce the raw materials for the formation of planets like our earth." [Ferguson, p. 94]

Quote from: "Whitney"If you were thinking like a cosmologist you wouldn't be making this argument.  YOu simply don't understand the 2nd law.  Here's a explanation link that I know you won't read because you are closed-minded and don't actually care about the truth:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html)
.

The issue at talkorigins is actually different , than what i stated. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

QuoteNew research has oppened up the possibility of bubble universes (a multiverse theory). So, while nothing is conclusive yet it leaves open the possibility of infinite existence.

The Multiverse proposal - a valid hypotheses ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... es-t20.htm (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/multiverse-a-valid-hypotheses-t20.htm)

Quotehttp://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono) ... se-t31.htm

how come no one else posts on your forum? only elshamah888?  

angelosergipe, you just recieved warning number 2 for continuing to not use your own words when posting.  Next warning is a one week ban.

I'm not going to even waste my time responding to you unless you comply with the rules.

Quote from: "G-Roll"

Quotehttp://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono) ... se-t31.htm

how come no one else posts on your forum? only elshamah888?  

Probably because elshamah888 is angelosergipe and knows posting here will help their search ranking.....

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "G-Roll"

Quotehttp://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono (http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono) ... se-t31.htm

how come no one else posts on your forum? only elshamah888?  :hide:

Quote from: "G-Roll"dude... there is like thousands of posts, but only one poster. its almost like... he is talking to himself...  

I have a feeling you aren't going to get an actual answer to that since no answer is going to be that flattering.

Went to the forum. First post I looked in had a YouTube video called "How to Convert an Atheist."

 

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Went to the forum. First post I looked in had a YouTube video called "How to Convert an Atheist."

 

I think they need to take conversion plan back to the drawing boards...annoying people is not a good approach.

Quote from: "G-Roll"

QuoteThen I have something for you  

Hi Folks, I am a famous Angelologist  I follow Angelo whereever he goes in the Internet and made a list of many forums wherein he evangelizes. Here it is  
And i wish you a happy new year, dear happy atheist forum  

so you are some kind of e-stalker? should i not feel creeped out? cause i do.....

Yes, I am a stalker of Angels. They tend to get nervous and take flight back to heaven when I draw near

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Went to the forum. First post I looked in had a YouTube video called "How to Convert an Atheist."

 :)

The question of evidence for the existence of god is one which will always baffle the atheist. The atheist looks for evidence which is separate from that which is in question. Wrong approach, completely the wrong approach, and this is something that the atheist can't understand, and this is why the atheist always ends up going round in circles, frustrated, and utterly futile. The atheist needs to understand that god's creation and god are one and the same. It's not that the atheist has an inferior intellect, it's more a case of the atheist having incorrect assumptions about what god is and what god does. I've had many discussions with atheists about this and they don't get it. I always chuckle when the atheist says to me "Prove it" Prove what, exactly? If the atheist doesn't even understand what it is that they want proven, how will they ever understand their own question? I'm afraid I can't help them if they themselves lack the understanding of what exactly they are asking. My atheist friends, please do some homework on what god is or what god is supposed to be before you ask such questions, otherwise the result will always be the same : Unanswered question, frustration, failure to grasp the very basics, and egg on face (I don't mean that in a patronizing way but it does make me chuckle). Other than that, I find atheists stimulating company, despite the obvious shortfalls.

I am FredMore, thank you for allowing me onto your forum. Let's keep it clean, please.

Quote from: "FredMore"The question of evidence for the existence of god is one which will always baffle the atheist. The atheist looks for evidence which is separate from that which is in question. Wrong approach, completely the wrong approach, and this is something that the atheist can't understand, and this is why the atheist always ends up going round in circles, frustrated, and utterly futile. The atheist needs to understand that god's creation and god are one and the same. It's not that the atheist has an inferior intellect, it's more a case of the atheist having incorrect assumptions about what god is and what god does. I've had many discussions with atheists about this and they don't get it. I always chuckle when the atheist says to me "Prove it" Prove what, exactly? If the atheist doesn't even understand what it is that they want proven, how will they ever understand their own question? I'm afraid I can't help them if they themselves lack the understanding of what exactly they are asking. My atheist friends, please do some homework on what god is or what god is supposed to be before you ask such questions, otherwise the result will always be the same : Unanswered question, frustration, failure to grasp the very basics, and egg on face (I don't mean that in a patronizing way but it does make me chuckle). Other than that, I find atheists stimulating company, despite the obvious shortfalls.

I am FredMore, thank you for allowing me onto your forum. Let's keep it clean, please.

Jeeze.  You're utterly dripping with a patronizing tone.  My question is, why should anyone care what you think?

Quote from: "FredMore"The question of evidence for the existence of god is one which will always baffle the atheist. The atheist looks for evidence which is separate from that which is in question. Wrong approach, completely the wrong approach, and this is something that the atheist can't understand, and this is why the atheist always ends up going round in circles, frustrated, and utterly futile. The atheist needs to understand that god's creation and god are one and the same. It's not that the atheist has an inferior intellect, it's more a case of the atheist having incorrect assumptions about what god is and what god does. I've had many discussions with atheists about this and they don't get it. I always chuckle when the atheist says to me "Prove it" Prove what, exactly? If the atheist doesn't even understand what it is that they want proven, how will they ever understand their own question? I'm afraid I can't help them if they themselves lack the understanding of what exactly they are asking. My atheist friends, please do some homework on what god is or what god is supposed to be before you ask such questions, otherwise the result will always be the same : Unanswered question, frustration, failure to grasp the very basics, and egg on face (I don't mean that in a patronizing way but it does make me chuckle). Other than that, I find atheists stimulating company, despite the obvious shortfalls.

I am FredMore, thank you for allowing me onto your forum. Let's keep it clean, please.

heehee!  I have obvious shortfalls!  I love that part best.  I'm really starting to warm up to you, FredMore.

Quote from: "FredMore"it's more a case of the atheist having incorrect assumptions about what god is and what god does. I've had many discussions with atheists about this and they don't get it. I always chuckle when the atheist says to me "Prove it" Prove what, exactly? If the atheist doesn't even understand what it is that they want proven, how will they ever understand their own question?

Evidently you understand it. Why don't you explain it to us?

Quote from: "FredMore"The question of evidence for the existence of god is one which will always baffle the atheist.

Why won't atheists take you seriously is a question that will always baffle theists.

Quote from: "FredMore"The question of evidence for the existence of god is one which will always baffle the atheist.

No Atheist is baffled. There is no evidence that indicates a god of any kind exists, and Atheists are simply willing to accept it.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Where did you first hear about this "God?" Who told you about it?

i heard already during my childhood about the God of the bible.

They got at you whilst you were young, then.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "FredMore"The question of evidence for the existence of god is one which will always baffle the atheist.

Why won't atheists take you seriously is a question that will always baffle theists.

how they believe all this is the part that baffels me. and then expect me to buy into it...

Quote from: "G-Roll"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"

Quote from: "FredMore"The question of evidence for the existence of god is one which will always baffle the atheist.

Why won't atheists take you seriously is a question that will always baffle theists.

how they believe all this is the part that baffels me. and then expect me to buy into it...

They bought into it and they are obviously smarter then us so why wouldn't we buy into it...

like i said, the part that baffels me....

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "G-Roll"How are you sure the God of the bible cannot be experienced ? Even yesterday, at the service at my church, a prophet of the church saw a young men attending, and said : Today God freed you to be killed, and only a few days ago, you were close to be arrested. The young men went to the pulpit, and accepted Jesus Christ as his lord and saviour. He admitted he was a trafficker. I can tell you many wonders, God is doing today. God can be experienced, today.

What is so wonderful about telling an known drug dealer that he is close to being arrested?  All known drug dealers get arrested.  Tell me another wonder.  This one didn't work.

Oh yes, please take a course in analytical thinking and basic logic.  It will help balance out your emotional, woo thinking.  You will cry less and the universe will make more sense to you.