I will now prove atheists are illogical Part 2.

Try a prayer.

Now, how do you test for what came before the Big Bang? Right, even prayer doesn't help with that one.

You are aware that science leads to agnosticism on this one? Correct?

 

i figure god gods or no god no gods something always was or came not being on its own just because

 

i have no god detected so god is false?

 

one can make up a myth to explain something... or try to figure it with science

until we knew more about the Sun, Sun Gods probably sounded pretty reasonable to some

do people still think god is upset when they hear thunder or crying when it rains, sounded reasonable to some once

religion also tries to explain rainbows, course science has sense explained that too

 

Something can come into existence god possible but unnecessary


God always was

Something can always have been god possible but unnecessary

You just add the minimum required traits for god’s existence to something else no need for the god or gods god or gods are not disproved

 

some would say I am an atheist, some not, I believe in a after life and a higher power, just not god as a person, maybe the deists had it right, who knows

 

And that is the problem. Atheism is all things and nothing. A superior moral code ... with no moral code. JUST the belief in no God, but evidence of the corruption at the heart of all religion and contrary beliefs. Its driven by facts and science, rationalism, yet the case in support of atheism is decidedly nonconclusive.

Granted, not all atheists are like this, but, generally speaking, the more vehement an atheist is in his or her rejection of religion - the more illogical and emotional their arguementation becomes. Not all atheists are illogical, the zealots of atheism are every bit as illogical as zealots of any creed.

 

Speaking of illogical. Your premise that all Athiests believe "the Big Bang theory "created" everything" is a false premise.

 

There are ways of developing moral codes without the idea of God.

 

How does one get convicted for murder when there is no body or direct tangible evidence ?

reva

 

false accusations and a prejudiced some times legitimately because you actually did it I don’t know

 

We can use tools other than hard science (logic and other similar tools) to determine what or who created or 'lit the fuse' of the big bang. The LHC at CERN is already shifting providing evidence that the physicists have it all wrong, that is string theory and the MWI. No metaverses etc. For a hint of the way reality really is constructed and what happened before t-O of the big bang I would suggest Googling Craig...KCA Reasonable Faith or;

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6689

reva

 

? To who are you addressing that? Quote tags are a good thing!

reva

 

Current ideas on physics being wrong don’t = god must have done it

 

to you

01234

 

No however it does not rule it out either. Are you familiar with the KCA by Koon or Craig?

reva

 

It sounds like babble to me care to expand on it? It's (your reply) not even a sentence. Here is the word salad again ;

Stig42 said; "false accusations and a prejudiced some times legitimately because you actually did it I don’t know" ugh...

false accusations (?) and a prejudiced (a prejudiced what?) some times (sometimes?) legitimately (?) because you actually did it (did what?) I dont know (indeed).

The answer I was looking for was circumstantial evidence convicts those with no tangible evidence. Why? Because the circumstantial evidence makes one guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if there is no tangible evidence for God we must rely on the circumstantial evidence for the existence of God which is abundant.

reva

 

i know it doesn’t rule it out

And no

 

You should read about the KCA with an open mind. Its a theory that can be highly complex or an easy read depending on preference. Basically it says that everything that begins to exist has a cause to cause it to exist. Since there was no mass matter etc before the big bang and the universe began to exist the cause of the universes existence was God or a God like force. Thats because nothing made of atoms or energy etc existed before the big bang banged. Since nothing known to science existed before the big bang God is a reasonable and logical reason for the universe to begin to exist. Well that's it in my words, its much more complex. The KCA is a form of cosmological argument that's taught in every major university in the world. It had never been defeated but has been challenged.

There's all kinds of stuff on the web or in the library about the KCA. Here are a few sites if you are interested I have not reviewed the sites;

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Part 1 (William Lane Craig ...
www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/.../kalam_cosmological_craig.p...
This is Part 1 of a review of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), as presented and defended by the evangelical theologian William Lane Craig. A version ...
Time and the Kalam Cosmological Argument
commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11530
Sep 27, 2010 – William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) requires that an “A Theory” of time is correct. As Craig explains, From start to finish, ...
Cosmological Argument
www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cosmological-argument.htm
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the variants of the argument which has been especially useful in defending the philosophical position of theistic ...
Philosophy of Religion » The Kalam Cosmological Argument
www.philosophyofreligion.info › ... › The Cosmological Argument
An explanation of the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God.

reva

 

Then they reject science. Which seems a tad illogical.

 

So, then the conclusion that there is no God is not a scientific or logical claim, at least not based on the evidence. Neither is it apparently faith?

That is a bit of a logical contradiction isn't it?

At this point in the dicussion, and I kid you not, I have watched hard core atheists quite literally convert before my eyes ...

And no worries, the coversion is not to God, its to a little something called agnostic atheism. That way atheists can act like strong atheists, but when it comes down to the evidence, why they aren't actually claiming anything at all! And at that point, they just became the atheist version of a total zealot - absolutely beyond reason - no longer even entertaining the pretense of logic.

Watching the converstion is quite a thing to behold.

 

i will take a crack at those links later

um

What do you mean by god or god like force if your just saying something different from what we see in the universe gave rise to the universe and whatever that something is we should call god ok


if your saying that god or god like force had to be a person some grand engineer and or a source of moral authority where do you get that from?

 

This was always the incomprehension of many physicists that drove me insane.......
Yes, the big bang was the start of 'our' universe, but to believe it was a one time fancy..... A single occurrence of the eternal nothingness??? It's actually nothing less than moronic to think such a thing.
The excuse for such an occurrence is quickly defined as quantum fluctuations...... Yes Bob, that's quantum fluctuation of nothing!!!
Does this nothing that is described have mass!!!???!!!
How does something without mass fluctuate!!!???!!!
Now then, if mass is present, even in an unknown scope of periphery..... Is it still nothing!!!???!!!
Nothingness as described in physics is highly subjective and also determined by the limited view of scale.

Even if the universe was infinitely expanding leaving an 'absolute' void of mass at it's center creating such a 'fluctuation' for another big bang.... It is the mass of this expansion which creates these undefined fluctuations to occur in order to produce such a bang......
Any which way you choose to examine it in thought, in it's grand scale it is a continuum!!! Hence, the universe as we know it is finite, but in the grand scale of mass, it is a part of an infinite continuum.

 

no saying you know god doesn’t exist seems to be faith to me iv never red some one arguing that god doesn’t exist and gone o well that must be true

 

If you are an atheist, you are cliaming that God id definitively not there. Unless you are an agnostic atheist, at which point you aren't claiming anything at all, and neither reason nor logic (and definitely not faith) drives your opinion in the slightest.

Either atheism is the result of a logical and explainable thought process, or ... it isn't.

If it isn't? Well, the evidence leads to agnosticism ... and it isn't ... but its not faith driving conclusiveness ... well, that ball of illogical is a problem for atheists.

Again, there are atheists out there that acknowlegde that atheism is just a faith choice. Its the ones who scream about how logical they are, and how delusional and illogical everyone else is, that are ... well, zealots.

There is nothing wrong with atheism, it is no more or no less logical than any other faith choice. But atheists don't seem to want to acknoweldge that simple fact ... for some reason. And whatever that reason is? Its not entirely logical.