Creation vs. Atheism

@invictum777 if something created God, than God wouldn't be God. Whoever created him would be. He is and was and always will be. Everything came from God and God is eternal.
What is your explanation for who created the big bang?

> What is your explanation for who created the big bang?

Whatever was behind th Big Bang might as well be described as "eternal" as well, no? Even more so, because "eternal" (that is: being infinite in respect to time) needs the concept of time as base. Since the universe as we know it is a space-time continuum, so that "time" is part of it, it follows that to speak of "time" before the universe came into existence doesn't make sense.

You make the same error as @sethtristan: you think that everything works in the same way as your everyday experience suggests (in this case: time). Science proves every da that this is exactly NOT the case.

But go ahead, "gravity" is a theory, after all, not a fact - just like evolution. Climb the roof of a skyscraper, shout loud "i don't believe in theories" and jump. I bet you will be - with finality - convinced of the cogency of scientific theories very shortly thereafter.


@krasnaya Except that we can actually see gravity while we must use our imagination for evolution. "You have to imagine the dog having a bannana as offspring."
But the big bang breaks several laws of logic and nature.
What do you mean by "whatever was behind the big bang"? you mean that God created it?

> What do you mean by "whatever was behind the big bang"? you mean that God created it?

I don't rely on making up stories about reality so i do not mean "god created" anything. First off, that "anything must have a creator" is the same kind of thinking i talked about in my last entry: reality doesn't always work like everyday experience suggests and just because i have toaster of which i know that somebody made it doesn't mean the universe must be created in the same way my toaster was. Therefore the argument "who created the universe" is eo ipso nonsense, because it implies that it must be that way.

Second, "behind the Big Bang" was figuratively speaking. Maybe there was something, that made the Big Bang happen, maybe not. We do not know now and maybe we will never know. That is just not an argument for "god", because if i do not know, i do not know. If there is someone factually and observably dead this might have several reasons: illness, murder, accident, .... But just because we do not know the cause (and will maybe never find out) doesn't mean that "god struck him down". That is making up stories.

You say that "we can actually see gravity". Fine. As we cannot "see god" this takes away a lot of credibility from the concept, no? In fact i'll try an experiment:


You see: i still exist. What does that (and especially the predictability of that happening) say about the existence of "god", hm?


@krasnaya Saying that doesn't show evidence for anything. it will happen in time anyway. If i'm wrong, you can't strike me down. And my life ends peacfully. But if you're wrong...
Well, we did see God in the past. And still denied him. (of course you wouldn't read the part that i mentioned the Bible or take that into considoration) We can ""see God"" through his word, complexity of life, just looking around outside, using logic to think how we got here. Would you write a book that condemns yourself?

This thread would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

What do you mean, "..we did see god in the past"? Do you believe everything you read? Do you believe in fairies and ghosts and loch ness monsters? I have read about them in books too.

'Seeing' god through his word, the complexity of life and by looking around doesnt make sense. It is not evidence!!!

It is fine for you to believe whatever you like, but do not teach this nonsense to children. Keep it out of schools and politics. And be prepared to be challenged on your crazy beliefs.

There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution. It is based on observation and experiment. Just like gravity. It is as much fact as the Earth revolving around the Sun. I have already posted an example.

All you have is the words from an old fairy tale...

well first of all, he didn't "come", he always existed. Outside of time too. Second, man can't comprehend the nature of God because if we could, he wouldn't really be God would he?

@BlackBishop9319 said:
> well first of all, he didn't "come", he always existed.

From where do you know that? That is simply a claim you make, without an fact backing it.

> Outside of time too.

You denied exactly this when talking about the Big Bang. "Nothing can come out of nothing". It seems that someting can indeed come out of nothing if we only call that something "god" and make up silly stories about how he got into Marys panties. *)

> Second, man can't comprehend the nature of God

What?? You admit that your apparatus of comprehension is limited? And with this limited apparatus you have uncovered gods way of existing, namely his existence "out of time". You can't have it both ways: either your comprehension is limited or it isn't.

Either you lack the ability to understand gods nature because of this limitation - but then you just have to shut up and say "we don't know", like science does sometimes - which you took as an excuse to disregard its results wholesale in the first place. In this case your belief in god isn't even as good as science in explaining things because it explains less, not more.

Or your ability to comprehend is not limited - but then you say yourself that "god" wouldn't "really be god" anymore.

So, which way it is? The slings or the arrows of outrageous fortune?



*) corollary: here is a more realistic motivation for the new testament. A young woman is pregnant, nobody knows the father. Three old men come and bring precious gifts. Just follow the money.....