Comments
1,641 - 1,660 of 1,922 Comments Last updated Oct 20, 2013

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1695
May 28, 2013
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as I know, the Bible is also a book written by men. Perhaps by men who claim to be writing for your god, but then there are lots of other books written by men who claim to be writing for their god. The Vedas, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc. etc.
Yet you DON'T believe that any of these other books are true, despite having the same claim your book has. So why is that? It certainly can't be based on evidence for the Bible agrees with very little of the evidence.
Where as science and history books do agree with the evidence. In fact, to be accepted as science or history MUST agree with the evidence.
It makes me wonder just what criteria you use to decide whether a book is presenting a credible story or complete bollocks.
--------

Oh! So the Bible is also a book written by men? Did I say anything different? Why don't you read the post first before you post you reply? I said that also the Bible is a book written by men. Then you repeat my statement as if with the intent to take credit for what I said. Atheists never cease amazing me. Then to say that the Bible agrees with very little of the evidence you must read it first then tell me what you think you know. I might be able to teach you a thing or two. All books present no credible story. Credible stories are stories eye-witnessed and not reported through
hear-saying.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1696
May 28, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not a very smart troll even though you try quite hard to be.
When you have evidence to back up your god, then you qualify to criticize science, that's how being honest works - I'm sure your cult did not teach you this.
You are either a fool or a liar. I obviously do not believe in a God. You belong to a cult however, the one that worships your own self and does not look outside at the realities of what others think. You lie so easily and freely, and yet call others liars. Too bad I do not believe in a hot hell for false accusers.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1697
May 28, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
What is the matter with atheists, don't they have a mind of their own? I have given up the intent to prove the Primal Cause. Again, forget about God! If there was no need for a outside cause to the universe how did the universe cause itself to exist? Can a question be simpler than that?
What was the outside cause of the causer of the universe, or was there a first cause uncaused?
If there was a first cause uncaused, they why couldn't the universe be uncaused?

If you folks on both sides of these arguments do not eventually realize that you do not know, you will always be silly. That goes for you and for Skeptic.

The atheist who does not believe and is also an agnostic about many "cosmic" matters has sense enough to realize that some things are not adequately explained yet, by anyone. And has the modesty to suspect that some things may not be explainable to us, certainly not by religion, and not by the arrogant type of science that claims to have found some Ultimate Truths, instead of enjoying the looking around for the fun of it and for the practical benefits (though watch out for the bad technology that sometimes results).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1698
May 28, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Let me see if I understood you right: You admit that the universe had a beginning with the BB. If it had a beginning it means that it was not always there.
Wrong. Look at what it means to say something is 'always there': it means that it is there for all *time*. Well, time *is* there for all time! So it is 'always there' even though it 'had a beginning'. In this case,'having a beginning' simply means that time cannot be extended backwards infinitely into the past.
Since I am wrong to admit the Primal Cause
how did the universe happened to be there? Out of magic or what? Even out of magic we need the magician. How is going to be?
Once again, you are assuming there has to be a cause. That is your basic mistake. Causes happen *in time*, so a cause for time is self-contradictory. Since time is co-eval with the universe, the universe is also uncaused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1699
May 28, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
You are back and I thought you had some answers this time. I am not asking about time but about how the universe caused itself into existence if it had a beginning and the Primal Cause is NOT implied.
Time is *part* of the universe. Since it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time, it is also meaningless to talk about the cause of the universe. Causes are in time and are part of how the universe works.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1700
May 28, 2013
 
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
All scientists I have read about or listened to on the History channel adopt the role of the BB to explain the origin of the universe. Only atheists who for sure know better than scientists deny that role for the BB. Obviously because the father of the BB theory was a theist. What's new?
good grief! the history channel? that is a convincing source? the Big Bang is a silly religion, if it is taken as religion. An atheist or agnostic atheist is not a believer in things that are asserted as absolutes by true believers. Even if a scientist has a theory that makes good sense and has strong evidence that has not yet been contradicted, that is not something to be Believed in with a sort of religious conviction -- which is what you seem to want to do with the Big Bang.

You will run into other believers who do not accept the Big Bang as consistent with Biblical teaching, however.

Since: May 13

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1701
May 28, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Time is *part* of the universe. Since it is meaningless to talk about the cause of time, it is also meaningless to talk about the cause of the universe. Causes are in time and are part of how the universe works.
im superlate in the discussion, so i apologize. so shiboleth is saying that het universe had a beginning, and you say that the universe is uncaused because time is a part of the universe, somthing along that lines?im just curious as to which view of time you hold to.
Thinking

Sturminster Newton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1702
May 28, 2013
 
Then you have read only selectively.

Did you ever catch "What Happened Before the Big Bang?"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
All scientists I have read about or listened to on the History channel adopt the role of the BB to explain the origin of the universe. Only atheists who for sure know better than scientists deny that role for the BB. Obviously because the father of the BB theory was a theist. What's new?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1703
May 28, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Look at what it means to say something is 'always there': it means that it is there for all *time*. Well, time *is* there for all time! So it is 'always there' even though it 'had a beginning'. In this case,'having a beginning' simply means that time cannot be extended backwards infinitely into the past.
<quoted text>
Once again, you are assuming there has to be a cause. That is your basic mistake. Causes happen *in time*, so a cause for time is self-contradictory. Since time is co-eval with the universe, the universe is also uncaused.
that was to someone else, and my problem with it is that I feel that many scientists claim to know more than they really know. I think all religious explanations are ridiculous, but I have no problem with not knowing answers and do not feel compelled to believe what current scientific thinking asserts. I think there is a long record of scientific thinking being shown to be mistaken here and there, over the centuries. The great thing is the lack of a final conclusion labeled as the Truth, and the ongoing inquiry - not WHAT WE KNOW FOR SURE.
Thinking

Sturminster Newton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1704
May 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

I wasn't expecting that!
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
Hate, and fear-- the two weapons of the Spanish Inquisition!
;)

Since: May 13

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1705
May 28, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
Then you have read only selectively.
Did you ever catch "What Happened Before the Big Bang?"?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj
<quoted text>
im ious, what view do you hold on this matter of the begining of the cosmos?

Since: May 13

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1706
May 28, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
Then you have read only selectively.
Did you ever catch "What Happened Before the Big Bang?"?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj
<quoted text>
i ment curious lol

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1708
May 28, 2013
 
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
im superlate in the discussion, so i apologize. so shiboleth is saying that het universe had a beginning, and you say that the universe is uncaused because time is a part of the universe, somthing along that lines?im just curious as to which view of time you hold to.
Yes, time is part of the universe: the universe is a geometry of spacetime. It is *possible*(although not proven) that the universe began with the Big bang and time began along with it. it is also *possible* that time and the universe can be extended infinitely far into the past. In either case, time and the universe are uncaused.

Since: May 13

Hightstown, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1709
May 28, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, time is part of the universe: the universe is a geometry of spacetime. It is *possible*(although not proven) that the universe began with the Big bang and time began along with it. it is also *possible* that time and the universe can be extended infinitely far into the past. In either case, time and the universe are uncaused.
ok. i hold the view that time is a product of events. so that if you go back to the "beginning" at t=0, time doesnt exist. with the first even, T=1, whatever i may have been, time came into existance. i think causes when dealing with that level, be they quantum or not, require simultanuity. it may be a concept of things happening at the same moment, something which instantiates time. even if it requires the concept of time to be accurate, it isnt to say that the event relys on time to occur f you hold this view of time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1710
May 28, 2013
 
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
ok. i hold the view that time is a product of events. so that if you go back to the "beginning" at t=0, time doesnt exist. with the first even, T=1, whatever i may have been, time came into existance. i think causes when dealing with that level, be they quantum or not, require simultanuity. it may be a concept of things happening at the same moment, something which instantiates time. even if it requires the concept of time to be accurate, it isnt to say that the event relys on time to occur f you hold this view of time.
When you write t=0, you are already assuming time exists. Furthermore, the concept of causes being simultaneous with effects is problematic, at least. In fact, the only situation it *could* be consistent is when there is a continuing sequence of causes and effects over time.

The very nature of causality requires time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1711
May 28, 2013
 
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
ok. i hold the view that time is a product of events.
There are very serious observational problems with that perspective. In particular, time is part of the geometry of the universe and can be curved by matter and energy. it is not caused by events, events are locations in spacetime.
Thinking

Sturminster Newton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1712
May 28, 2013
 
No worries. I don't think there's consensus on the question, let alone the answer.

Personally, I could easily believe that the Big Bang has resulted only in our "local" universe (i.e. that which is observable from here). But reality has little concern for what I believe.
Ray puelerico wrote:
<quoted text>
i ment curious lol

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1713
May 28, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
I wasn't expecting that!
<quoted text>
... nobody does.

:)

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1714
May 29, 2013
 
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> What was the outside cause of the causer of the universe, or was there a first cause uncaused?
If there was a first cause uncaused, they why couldn't the universe be uncaused?
If you folks on both sides of these arguments do not eventually realize that you do not know, you will always be silly. That goes for you and for Skeptic.
The atheist who does not believe and is also an agnostic about many "cosmic" matters has sense enough to realize that some things are not adequately explained yet, by anyone. And has the modesty to suspect that some things may not be explainable to us, certainly not by religion, and not by the arrogant type of science that claims to have found some Ultimate Truths, instead of enjoying the looking around for the fun of it and for the practical benefits (though watch out for the bad technology that sometimes results).
-------

If there was an outside causer for the cause the cause would not be the Primal Cause. So your "rationalization" is irrelevant. The probability that the universe was uncaused was the mistake of Aristotle corrected by George Lemaitre in 1922 with the theory of the BB. You are still going according to the old order. A wake up call is still in order for you to smell the coffee.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1715
May 29, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Look at what it means to say something is 'always there': it means that it is there for all *time*. Well, time *is* there for all time! So it is 'always there' even though it 'had a beginning'. In this case,'having a beginning' simply means that time cannot be extended backwards infinitely into the past.
<quoted text>
Once again, you are assuming there has to be a cause. That is your basic mistake. Causes happen *in time*, so a cause for time is self-contradictory. Since time is co-eval with the universe, the universe is also uncaused.
-------

First, you are the personification of contradictions. Even before reading the post you charge me with being wrong then you contradict
yourself by faking a definition for "Always being there even though
it had a beginning." If it had a beginning it could not always have been there. Atheists make anyone quit trying to understand
them. You charged me with being wrong then explained that I was right all along. When are you going to make up your mind?

Again, if the universe had a beginning as you admit above it must have been caused. Since you do not agree with the Primal Cause, how did the universe cause itself to exist?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

11 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
If Christianity were true... 5 min henry 126
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min Aura Mytha 225,563
One top most argument for atheism (Apr '12) 20 min henry 3
Hollywood Actor Reveals What He Thinks Is 'Weir... 46 min Lawrence Wolf 99
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Pahu 882
Introducing The Universal Religion (Feb '14) 4 hr religionisillness 753
Our world came from nothing? 4 hr religionisillness 354
•••
•••