But you don't know that something has to start somewhere...
How could you?

It doesn't make sense to me, but it might be how things are.

Anyways, I must go now. Thanks for the discussion

"Define "prove"
If you mean 100% then there's no point in discussing it"

Thanks for the discussion, finally had one without bashing.

We don't know what happened before the big bang.

But why does it need a creator? Just because we don't know what was before the big bang doesn't mean there has to be a creator.

You know about the hypothesis that the universe will eventually collapse into a singularity again, causing another big bang?
That's one possibility. That maybe the universe is just another reincarnation in an endless chain universes.


"except you ofcourse"
Thank you, I try my best to keep an open mind

I like to use the "Unmoved mover" argument for that.

"Something that is in motion, must be moved by something. Something that is moving cannot move itself. So there must be an unmoved mover"

The unmoved mover would be God then.

And an endless chain is impossible. Because it has to start somewhere, doesn't matter how long it is, one would be the first.

But you don't know that something has to start somewhere...
How could you?

It doesn't make sense to me, but it might be how things are.

Anyways, I must go now. Thanks for the discussion

"Define "prove"
If you mean 100% then there's no point in discussing it"

Thanks for the discussion, finally had one without bashing.

"(If you're gonna say "you are emotionally hurt" and say "you have no arguments", then keep it to yourself) "
At the very least severely butthurt/annoyed. Come on, you can't deny that your comments give off an emotional state.

I don't know. I accept big bang cosmology as the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

The big bang theory is that a huge explosion created the universe. Ofcourse, the explosion needed to come from somewhere.
It could not have created itself. ( A robot cannot assemble itself)
Where did it come from? nothingness?

Impossible since nothingness is really nothing, it has no energy values or really any feature.

Then how did it get there?
Thats where a creator comes in.

(AGAIN, I am annoyed because nobody really is discussing with an open mind, except you ofcourse.)

We don't know what happened before the big bang.

But why does it need a creator? Just because we don't know what was before the big bang doesn't mean there has to be a creator.

You know about the hypothesis that the universe will eventually collapse into a singularity again, causing another big bang?
That's one possibility. That maybe the universe is just another reincarnation in an endless chain universes.


"except you ofcourse"
Thank you, I try my best to keep an open mind

I like to use the "Unmoved mover" argument for that.

"Something that is in motion, must be moved by something. Something that is moving cannot move itself. So there must be an unmoved mover"

The unmoved mover would be God then.

And an endless chain is impossible. Because it has to start somewhere, doesn't matter how long it is, one would be the first.

But you don't know that something has to start somewhere...
How could you?

It doesn't make sense to me, but it might be how things are.

Anyways, I must go now. Thanks for the discussion

"Define "prove"
If you mean 100% then there's no point in discussing it"

Thanks for the discussion, finally had one without bashing.

i use the painting argument. not a strong argument in the case of scientific logic but a good philosophical thought starter and goes as follows: when you look at a painting you would not say "that's nice, but did anyone paint it?" when you see a painting, it is obvious someone imagined and subsequently created it. why then is it so hard for people to believe something or someone created the universe? on the same note, why the hell do people think they know everything about god like he or it is some physical manifestation rather than a metaphysical apparition? /rant
tl;dr? something created universe/ can't know what

" is not considerd silly because scientist came up with it. "
"I never can have a normal discussion here without alot of people attacking. "
This reeks of victim mentality, like you're emotionally hurt or somethnig.

I didn't realize you had a question. Seems to me like you're just venting a lot of anger

I am not emotionaly hurt, not even close.
The thing that is getting on my nerves is that people never ever normal discuss.

My question was: "How do you think the universe is created".

(If you're gonna say "you are emotionally hurt" and say "you have no arguments", then keep it to yourself)

"(If you're gonna say "you are emotionally hurt" and say "you have no arguments", then keep it to yourself) "
At the very least severely butthurt/annoyed. Come on, you can't deny that your comments give off an emotional state.

I don't know. I accept big bang cosmology as the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

The big bang theory is that a huge explosion created the universe. Ofcourse, the explosion needed to come from somewhere.
It could not have created itself. ( A robot cannot assemble itself)
Where did it come from? nothingness?

Impossible since nothingness is really nothing, it has no energy values or really any feature.

Then how did it get there?
Thats where a creator comes in.

(AGAIN, I am annoyed because nobody really is discussing with an open mind, except you ofcourse.)

We don't know what happened before the big bang.

But why does it need a creator? Just because we don't know what was before the big bang doesn't mean there has to be a creator.

You know about the hypothesis that the universe will eventually collapse into a singularity again, causing another big bang?
That's one possibility. That maybe the universe is just another reincarnation in an endless chain universes.


"except you ofcourse"
Thank you, I try my best to keep an open mind

I like to use the "Unmoved mover" argument for that.

"Something that is in motion, must be moved by something. Something that is moving cannot move itself. So there must be an unmoved mover"

The unmoved mover would be God then.

And an endless chain is impossible. Because it has to start somewhere, doesn't matter how long it is, one would be the first.

But you don't know that something has to start somewhere...
How could you?

It doesn't make sense to me, but it might be how things are.

Anyways, I must go now. Thanks for the discussion

"Define "prove"
If you mean 100% then there's no point in discussing it"

Thanks for the discussion, finally had one without bashing.

Again a reason why people think you're silly.

It's not just because a scientist came up with it and not a religious person
You're going at this from an emotionally hurt angle, and your arguments show this.

Lose the "I am a victim" attitude, and I assure you your arguments will be better and more well-received by people of the opposite side.

You didn't answer me at all.

And I never had an "I am a victim", I never can have a normal discussion here without alot of people attacking.

Again, I am not even religous.
The only thing you say about my arguments is that they are silly and thats it.

i use the painting argument. not a strong argument in the case of scientific logic but a good philosophical thought starter and goes as follows: when you look at a painting you would not say "that's nice, but did anyone paint it?" when you see a painting, it is obvious someone imagined and subsequently created it. why then is it so hard for people to believe something or someone created the universe? on the same note, why the hell do people think they know everything about god like he or it is some physical manifestation rather than a metaphysical apparition? /rant
tl;dr? something created universe/ can't know what

" is not considerd silly because scientist came up with it. "
"I never can have a normal discussion here without alot of people attacking. "
This reeks of victim mentality, like you're emotionally hurt or somethnig.

I didn't realize you had a question. Seems to me like you're just venting a lot of anger

I am not emotionaly hurt, not even close.
The thing that is getting on my nerves is that people never ever normal discuss.

My question was: "How do you think the universe is created".

(If you're gonna say "you are emotionally hurt" and say "you have no arguments", then keep it to yourself)

"(If you're gonna say "you are emotionally hurt" and say "you have no arguments", then keep it to yourself) "
At the very least severely butthurt/annoyed. Come on, you can't deny that your comments give off an emotional state.

I don't know. I accept big bang cosmology as the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

The big bang theory is that a huge explosion created the universe. Ofcourse, the explosion needed to come from somewhere.
It could not have created itself. ( A robot cannot assemble itself)
Where did it come from? nothingness?

Impossible since nothingness is really nothing, it has no energy values or really any feature.

Then how did it get there?
Thats where a creator comes in.

(AGAIN, I am annoyed because nobody really is discussing with an open mind, except you ofcourse.)

We don't know what happened before the big bang.

But why does it need a creator? Just because we don't know what was before the big bang doesn't mean there has to be a creator.

You know about the hypothesis that the universe will eventually collapse into a singularity again, causing another big bang?
That's one possibility. That maybe the universe is just another reincarnation in an endless chain universes.


"except you ofcourse"
Thank you, I try my best to keep an open mind

I like to use the "Unmoved mover" argument for that.

"Something that is in motion, must be moved by something. Something that is moving cannot move itself. So there must be an unmoved mover"

The unmoved mover would be God then.

And an endless chain is impossible. Because it has to start somewhere, doesn't matter how long it is, one would be the first.

But you don't know that something has to start somewhere...
How could you?

It doesn't make sense to me, but it might be how things are.

Anyways, I must go now. Thanks for the discussion

"Define "prove"
If you mean 100% then there's no point in discussing it"

Thanks for the discussion, finally had one without bashing.

It's because of arguments like the
"prove to me it doesn't exist"
"just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there"

These are silly arguments, because they lead nowhere.

I would argue that it will be logical to any entitty that 2+2=4
two rocks plus two rocks makes four rocks.

There's a reason why people doing research into communicating with aliens are working with math and binary. Because it will be understood by any creature.
As such, the logic that holds math together applies everywhere, and to everyone.

But when a huge explosion came from complete nothingness for no reason is not considerd silly because scientist came up with it.

Again a reason why people think you're silly.

It's not just because a scientist came up with it and not a religious person
You're going at this from an emotionally hurt angle, and your arguments show this.

Lose the "I am a victim" attitude, and I assure you your arguments will be better and more well-received by people of the opposite side.

You didn't answer me at all.

And I never had an "I am a victim", I never can have a normal discussion here without alot of people attacking.

Again, I am not even religous.
The only thing you say about my arguments is that they are silly and thats it.

i use the painting argument. not a strong argument in the case of scientific logic but a good philosophical thought starter and goes as follows: when you look at a painting you would not say "that's nice, but did anyone paint it?" when you see a painting, it is obvious someone imagined and subsequently created it. why then is it so hard for people to believe something or someone created the universe? on the same note, why the hell do people think they know everything about god like he or it is some physical manifestation rather than a metaphysical apparition? /rant
tl;dr? something created universe/ can't know what

" is not considerd silly because scientist came up with it. "
"I never can have a normal discussion here without alot of people attacking. "
This reeks of victim mentality, like you're emotionally hurt or somethnig.

I didn't realize you had a question. Seems to me like you're just venting a lot of anger

I am not emotionaly hurt, not even close.
The thing that is getting on my nerves is that people never ever normal discuss.

My question was: "How do you think the universe is created".

(If you're gonna say "you are emotionally hurt" and say "you have no arguments", then keep it to yourself)

"(If you're gonna say "you are emotionally hurt" and say "you have no arguments", then keep it to yourself) "
At the very least severely butthurt/annoyed. Come on, you can't deny that your comments give off an emotional state.

I don't know. I accept big bang cosmology as the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

The big bang theory is that a huge explosion created the universe. Ofcourse, the explosion needed to come from somewhere.
It could not have created itself. ( A robot cannot assemble itself)
Where did it come from? nothingness?

Impossible since nothingness is really nothing, it has no energy values or really any feature.

Then how did it get there?
Thats where a creator comes in.

(AGAIN, I am annoyed because nobody really is discussing with an open mind, except you ofcourse.)

We don't know what happened before the big bang.

But why does it need a creator? Just because we don't know what was before the big bang doesn't mean there has to be a creator.

You know about the hypothesis that the universe will eventually collapse into a singularity again, causing another big bang?
That's one possibility. That maybe the universe is just another reincarnation in an endless chain universes.


"except you ofcourse"
Thank you, I try my best to keep an open mind

I like to use the "Unmoved mover" argument for that.

"Something that is in motion, must be moved by something. Something that is moving cannot move itself. So there must be an unmoved mover"

The unmoved mover would be God then.

And an endless chain is impossible. Because it has to start somewhere, doesn't matter how long it is, one would be the first.

But you don't know that something has to start somewhere...
How could you?

It doesn't make sense to me, but it might be how things are.

Anyways, I must go now. Thanks for the discussion

"Define "prove"
If you mean 100% then there's no point in discussing it"

Thanks for the discussion, finally had one without bashing.

It's a problem we can't currently solve.
Have you played Minecraft? Fiddled around with logic gates?

The real world is somewhat the same.
If we were all omniscient, everything that is logical to one would be logical to another.
The only variant in logic is one's own knowledge.

The more you know, the more "valid" your logic becomes.

Yes, but my knowledge is not accepted here. Its like everybody needs to believe the same thing or your an idiot.

Logic is created by humans, and would always be like that. If somebody comes up with something that does not fit in this so called logic, its stomped into the ground.

It's because of arguments like the
"prove to me it doesn't exist"
"just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there"

These are silly arguments, because they lead nowhere.

I would argue that it will be logical to any entitty that 2+2=4
two rocks plus two rocks makes four rocks.

There's a reason why people doing research into communicating with aliens are working with math and binary. Because it will be understood by any creature.
As such, the logic that holds math together applies everywhere, and to everyone.

But when a huge explosion came from complete nothingness for no reason is not considerd silly because scientist came up with it.

Again a reason why people think you're silly.

It's not just because a scientist came up with it and not a religious person
You're going at this from an emotionally hurt angle, and your arguments show this.

Lose the "I am a victim" attitude, and I assure you your arguments will be better and more well-received by people of the opposite side.

You didn't answer me at all.

And I never had an "I am a victim", I never can have a normal discussion here without alot of people attacking.

Again, I am not even religous.
The only thing you say about my arguments is that they are silly and thats it.

i use the painting argument. not a strong argument in the case of scientific logic but a good philosophical thought starter and goes as follows: when you look at a painting you would not say "that's nice, but did anyone paint it?" when you see a painting, it is obvious someone imagined and subsequently created it. why then is it so hard for people to believe something or someone created the universe? on the same note, why the hell do people think they know everything about god like he or it is some physical manifestation rather than a metaphysical apparition? /rant
tl;dr? something created universe/ can't know what

" is not considerd silly because scientist came up with it. "
"I never can have a normal discussion here without alot of people attacking. "
This reeks of victim mentality, like you're emotionally hurt or somethnig.

I didn't realize you had a question. Seems to me like you're just venting a lot of anger

I am not emotionaly hurt, not even close.
The thing that is getting on my nerves is that people never ever normal discuss.

My question was: "How do you think the universe is created".

(If you're gonna say "you are emotionally hurt" and say "you have no arguments", then keep it to yourself)

"(If you're gonna say "you are emotionally hurt" and say "you have no arguments", then keep it to yourself) "
At the very least severely butthurt/annoyed. Come on, you can't deny that your comments give off an emotional state.

I don't know. I accept big bang cosmology as the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

The big bang theory is that a huge explosion created the universe. Ofcourse, the explosion needed to come from somewhere.
It could not have created itself. ( A robot cannot assemble itself)
Where did it come from? nothingness?

Impossible since nothingness is really nothing, it has no energy values or really any feature.

Then how did it get there?
Thats where a creator comes in.

(AGAIN, I am annoyed because nobody really is discussing with an open mind, except you ofcourse.)

We don't know what happened before the big bang.

But why does it need a creator? Just because we don't know what was before the big bang doesn't mean there has to be a creator.

You know about the hypothesis that the universe will eventually collapse into a singularity again, causing another big bang?
That's one possibility. That maybe the universe is just another reincarnation in an endless chain universes.


"except you ofcourse"
Thank you, I try my best to keep an open mind

I like to use the "Unmoved mover" argument for that.

"Something that is in motion, must be moved by something. Something that is moving cannot move itself. So there must be an unmoved mover"

The unmoved mover would be God then.

And an endless chain is impossible. Because it has to start somewhere, doesn't matter how long it is, one would be the first.

But you don't know that something has to start somewhere...
How could you?

It doesn't make sense to me, but it might be how things are.

Anyways, I must go now. Thanks for the discussion

"Define "prove"
If you mean 100% then there's no point in discussing it"

Thanks for the discussion, finally had one without bashing.

You are opening up a whole other argument which you will lose. Please don't. You can argue something jump started us but thinking that we were intelligently designed is laughable.

Yes, what if
And what if you're a fish in a fish tank

Again, absolutely pointless to make that argument.
Science doesn't deal in absolutes, because we are not omniscient beings.

And I see no point in discussing what if when there's a perfectly valid way of finding out things, that is also practical
Modern science. And it works.

It's the best way we have of finding out how the universe works. There are limitations, but only because there are things we cannot test.
In my opinion, if it cannot be tested by definition then it has no real impact on the universe, and is therefore utterly irrelevant

And thats where you get stuck.
If you try to prove everything by using human science, good luck. Something omnipotent surely wouldn't use human science.

Let's get some definitions in place

Evolution is fact
A scientific theory is a proven model that explains something

From what I know, the same goes for big bang cosmology. It's the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

What if all galaxies just popped up, and began moving? There is absolutely no way you can prove it, none.

(yeah, that does sound silly, but its just another rough example)

Yes, what if
And what if you're a fish in a fish tank

Again, absolutely pointless to make that argument.
Science doesn't deal in absolutes, because we are not omniscient beings.

And I see no point in discussing what if when there's a perfectly valid way of finding out things, that is also practical
Modern science. And it works.

It's the best way we have of finding out how the universe works. There are limitations, but only because there are things we cannot test.
In my opinion, if it cannot be tested by definition then it has no real impact on the universe, and is therefore utterly irrelevant

And thats where you get stuck.
If you try to prove everything by using human science, good luck. Something omnipotent surely wouldn't use human science.

You drop a rock
That's gravity

How is that not a "real" way of testing if gravity exists?
(If you're gonna say 100% certainty, save it)

If you spin something at high speed, it gets pushed to the sides, "Fake gravity".
If you drop a rock in that, it would fall to, but its not gravity. See?

I'm not ruling out god
I'm just withholding belief until I see some proper evidence

"But for me, a creator of the universe makes more sence then something from nothing for no reason. "
But then you're not searching for facts, you're just searching for something that makes sense to you, right?

Not really, I do not just blindly follow anything.
I was once an atheist until I came to ponder.

The big bang is not really a fact, its a theory.
There are no pictures, you cannot test it and there is no way to tell if it ever happend.
But I assume you believe it happend?

Let's get some definitions in place

Evolution is fact
A scientific theory is a proven model that explains something

From what I know, the same goes for big bang cosmology. It's the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

What if all galaxies just popped up, and began moving? There is absolutely no way you can prove it, none.

(yeah, that does sound silly, but its just another rough example)

Yes, what if
And what if you're a fish in a fish tank

Again, absolutely pointless to make that argument.
Science doesn't deal in absolutes, because we are not omniscient beings.

And I see no point in discussing what if when there's a perfectly valid way of finding out things, that is also practical
Modern science. And it works.

It's the best way we have of finding out how the universe works. There are limitations, but only because there are things we cannot test.
In my opinion, if it cannot be tested by definition then it has no real impact on the universe, and is therefore utterly irrelevant

And thats where you get stuck.
If you try to prove everything by using human science, good luck. Something omnipotent surely wouldn't use human science.

Do you still not see how pointless it is to argue when it comes to religion?

This shit slapping was hilarious though.

Did I ever say I was religous? No.

I only believe in a intelligent designer.

You are opening up a whole other argument which you will lose. Please don't. You can argue something jump started us but thinking that we were intelligently designed is laughable.

That's not relevant
You say god doesn't need a beginning because he's outside of time, and that you know this because scientists say so.
How do scientists know what goes on outside of time?
They can't possibly observe or measure it in any way.

So how do they know?
Logic

The same thing you just dismissed earlier.
So how do you know that god doesn't need a beginning?
Logic?

Its like everything in science, a hypothesis. Something behind human capabilities cannot be tested, not by human science that is.

You assume gravity exists (a rough example), but you have no real way to test it.
You drop something on the ground, that doesn't mean it does exist.
You say its because it warps space, but you cannot see space at all.

And still, you assume its there because scientists say so.That is human logic.

You drop a rock
That's gravity

How is that not a "real" way of testing if gravity exists?
(If you're gonna say 100% certainty, save it)

If you spin something at high speed, it gets pushed to the sides, "Fake gravity".
If you drop a rock in that, it would fall to, but its not gravity. See?

So it's an emotional thing
I agree, but talking about how we can't be sure there's no god is not exactly helping your case.
Because it's a silly argument.
Silly people can be seen as idiots

You see my point?

Yes, I clearly see your point.

But you cannot rule out God, you cannot rule out anything.
But for me, a creator of the universe makes more sence then something from nothing for no reason.

I'm not ruling out god
I'm just withholding belief until I see some proper evidence

"But for me, a creator of the universe makes more sence then something from nothing for no reason. "
But then you're not searching for facts, you're just searching for something that makes sense to you, right?

Not really, I do not just blindly follow anything.
I was once an atheist until I came to ponder.

The big bang is not really a fact, its a theory.
There are no pictures, you cannot test it and there is no way to tell if it ever happend.
But I assume you believe it happend?

Let's get some definitions in place

Evolution is fact
A scientific theory is a proven model that explains something

From what I know, the same goes for big bang cosmology. It's the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

What if all galaxies just popped up, and began moving? There is absolutely no way you can prove it, none.

(yeah, that does sound silly, but its just another rough example)

Yes, what if
And what if you're a fish in a fish tank

Again, absolutely pointless to make that argument.
Science doesn't deal in absolutes, because we are not omniscient beings.

And I see no point in discussing what if when there's a perfectly valid way of finding out things, that is also practical
Modern science. And it works.

It's the best way we have of finding out how the universe works. There are limitations, but only because there are things we cannot test.
In my opinion, if it cannot be tested by definition then it has no real impact on the universe, and is therefore utterly irrelevant

And thats where you get stuck.
If you try to prove everything by using human science, good luck. Something omnipotent surely wouldn't use human science.

So how do they know that something that exists outside of time doesn't need a beginning?

Then how do you know anything they say at all?

Do you still not see how pointless it is to argue when it comes to religion?

This shit slapping was hilarious though.

Did I ever say I was religous? No.

I only believe in a intelligent designer.

You are opening up a whole other argument which you will lose. Please don't. You can argue something jump started us but thinking that we were intelligently designed is laughable.

That's not relevant
You say god doesn't need a beginning because he's outside of time, and that you know this because scientists say so.
How do scientists know what goes on outside of time?
They can't possibly observe or measure it in any way.

So how do they know?
Logic

The same thing you just dismissed earlier.
So how do you know that god doesn't need a beginning?
Logic?

Its like everything in science, a hypothesis. Something behind human capabilities cannot be tested, not by human science that is.

You assume gravity exists (a rough example), but you have no real way to test it.
You drop something on the ground, that doesn't mean it does exist.
You say its because it warps space, but you cannot see space at all.

And still, you assume its there because scientists say so.That is human logic.

You drop a rock
That's gravity

How is that not a "real" way of testing if gravity exists?
(If you're gonna say 100% certainty, save it)

If you spin something at high speed, it gets pushed to the sides, "Fake gravity".
If you drop a rock in that, it would fall to, but its not gravity. See?

No one knows if the Abrahamic God exists.
No one knows if the Abrahamic God does not exist.

It's useless to discuss this question because the existance cannot be proven nor disproven at this time.
This is why I'm an apatheist.

100% certainty is very impractical
You cannot be 100% certain that you are not a fish in a tank with electrodes stuck into your big brain, making you believe you are actually human.

Yes, that is true. You can never be certain. But what I don't like is people always hate on religouse people and just think they are idiots.

So it's an emotional thing
I agree, but talking about how we can't be sure there's no god is not exactly helping your case.
Because it's a silly argument.
Silly people can be seen as idiots

You see my point?

Yes, I clearly see your point.

But you cannot rule out God, you cannot rule out anything.
But for me, a creator of the universe makes more sence then something from nothing for no reason.

I'm not ruling out god
I'm just withholding belief until I see some proper evidence

"But for me, a creator of the universe makes more sence then something from nothing for no reason. "
But then you're not searching for facts, you're just searching for something that makes sense to you, right?

Not really, I do not just blindly follow anything.
I was once an atheist until I came to ponder.

The big bang is not really a fact, its a theory.
There are no pictures, you cannot test it and there is no way to tell if it ever happend.
But I assume you believe it happend?

Let's get some definitions in place

Evolution is fact
A scientific theory is a proven model that explains something

From what I know, the same goes for big bang cosmology. It's the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

What if all galaxies just popped up, and began moving? There is absolutely no way you can prove it, none.

(yeah, that does sound silly, but its just another rough example)

Yes, what if
And what if you're a fish in a fish tank

Again, absolutely pointless to make that argument.
Science doesn't deal in absolutes, because we are not omniscient beings.

And I see no point in discussing what if when there's a perfectly valid way of finding out things, that is also practical
Modern science. And it works.

It's the best way we have of finding out how the universe works. There are limitations, but only because there are things we cannot test.
In my opinion, if it cannot be tested by definition then it has no real impact on the universe, and is therefore utterly irrelevant

And thats where you get stuck.
If you try to prove everything by using human science, good luck. Something omnipotent surely wouldn't use human science.

Are they omniscient?

No, ofcourse the scientists aren't.

So how do they know that something that exists outside of time doesn't need a beginning?

Then how do you know anything they say at all?

Do you still not see how pointless it is to argue when it comes to religion?

This shit slapping was hilarious though.

Did I ever say I was religous? No.

I only believe in a intelligent designer.

You are opening up a whole other argument which you will lose. Please don't. You can argue something jump started us but thinking that we were intelligently designed is laughable.

That's not relevant
You say god doesn't need a beginning because he's outside of time, and that you know this because scientists say so.
How do scientists know what goes on outside of time?
They can't possibly observe or measure it in any way.

So how do they know?
Logic

The same thing you just dismissed earlier.
So how do you know that god doesn't need a beginning?
Logic?

Its like everything in science, a hypothesis. Something behind human capabilities cannot be tested, not by human science that is.

You assume gravity exists (a rough example), but you have no real way to test it.
You drop something on the ground, that doesn't mean it does exist.
You say its because it warps space, but you cannot see space at all.

And still, you assume its there because scientists say so.That is human logic.

You drop a rock
That's gravity

How is that not a "real" way of testing if gravity exists?
(If you're gonna say 100% certainty, save it)

If you spin something at high speed, it gets pushed to the sides, "Fake gravity".
If you drop a rock in that, it would fall to, but its not gravity. See?

I don't assume anything, these things have been proven by other people.

Must we all invent the wheel for the wheel to be a thing?

No, but why can't God exist then?

No one knows if the Abrahamic God exists.
No one knows if the Abrahamic God does not exist.

It's useless to discuss this question because the existance cannot be proven nor disproven at this time.
This is why I'm an apatheist.

Not only can you not see god there is also NO EVIDENCE for god.

There is a difference between not being able to see something and having evidence to validize the existence of something.

Atoms: Not able to see them but their existence have been proven through evidence, testing and thousands of scientific experiments.

God: Not able to see and we do not have any evidence for him either, just like unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster. Therefor there is no valid reason to validate his existence.

The difference is, that we can observe these things

You cannot really observe things that you cannot see. You can test and draw a hypothesis, you can never be 100% sure.

100% certainty is very impractical
You cannot be 100% certain that you are not a fish in a tank with electrodes stuck into your big brain, making you believe you are actually human.

Yes, that is true. You can never be certain. But what I don't like is people always hate on religouse people and just think they are idiots.

So it's an emotional thing
I agree, but talking about how we can't be sure there's no god is not exactly helping your case.
Because it's a silly argument.
Silly people can be seen as idiots

You see my point?

Yes, I clearly see your point.

But you cannot rule out God, you cannot rule out anything.
But for me, a creator of the universe makes more sence then something from nothing for no reason.

I'm not ruling out god
I'm just withholding belief until I see some proper evidence

"But for me, a creator of the universe makes more sence then something from nothing for no reason. "
But then you're not searching for facts, you're just searching for something that makes sense to you, right?

Not really, I do not just blindly follow anything.
I was once an atheist until I came to ponder.

The big bang is not really a fact, its a theory.
There are no pictures, you cannot test it and there is no way to tell if it ever happend.
But I assume you believe it happend?

Let's get some definitions in place

Evolution is fact
A scientific theory is a proven model that explains something

From what I know, the same goes for big bang cosmology. It's the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

What if all galaxies just popped up, and began moving? There is absolutely no way you can prove it, none.

(yeah, that does sound silly, but its just another rough example)

Yes, what if
And what if you're a fish in a fish tank

Again, absolutely pointless to make that argument.
Science doesn't deal in absolutes, because we are not omniscient beings.

And I see no point in discussing what if when there's a perfectly valid way of finding out things, that is also practical
Modern science. And it works.

It's the best way we have of finding out how the universe works. There are limitations, but only because there are things we cannot test.
In my opinion, if it cannot be tested by definition then it has no real impact on the universe, and is therefore utterly irrelevant

And thats where you get stuck.
If you try to prove everything by using human science, good luck. Something omnipotent surely wouldn't use human science.

Says who?

Scientists. Like stephen hawking and einstein.

Not really quotes, but the conclusion is that time has a beginning, and an end. So does everything in time.

Are they omniscient?

No, ofcourse the scientists aren't.

So how do they know that something that exists outside of time doesn't need a beginning?

Then how do you know anything they say at all?

Do you still not see how pointless it is to argue when it comes to religion?

This shit slapping was hilarious though.

Did I ever say I was religous? No.

I only believe in a intelligent designer.

You are opening up a whole other argument which you will lose. Please don't. You can argue something jump started us but thinking that we were intelligently designed is laughable.

That's not relevant
You say god doesn't need a beginning because he's outside of time, and that you know this because scientists say so.
How do scientists know what goes on outside of time?
They can't possibly observe or measure it in any way.

So how do they know?
Logic

The same thing you just dismissed earlier.
So how do you know that god doesn't need a beginning?
Logic?

Its like everything in science, a hypothesis. Something behind human capabilities cannot be tested, not by human science that is.

You assume gravity exists (a rough example), but you have no real way to test it.
You drop something on the ground, that doesn't mean it does exist.
You say its because it warps space, but you cannot see space at all.

And still, you assume its there because scientists say so.That is human logic.

You drop a rock
That's gravity

How is that not a "real" way of testing if gravity exists?
(If you're gonna say 100% certainty, save it)

If you spin something at high speed, it gets pushed to the sides, "Fake gravity".
If you drop a rock in that, it would fall to, but its not gravity. See?

No, I don't really know either, because I'm not a scientist, I'm just a simple IT-guy.

"If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
- Albert Einstein

But you just assume that its real?

I don't assume anything, these things have been proven by other people.

Must we all invent the wheel for the wheel to be a thing?

No, but why can't God exist then?

No one knows if the Abrahamic God exists.
No one knows if the Abrahamic God does not exist.

It's useless to discuss this question because the existance cannot be proven nor disproven at this time.
This is why I'm an apatheist.

Just because you can't see these things does not mean that there is no evidence for it. Is this really the most intelligent "argument" religious nutcases can come up with these days?

Wow wow wow friend, no need to get offensive. I just discuss the subject. You can't see God either, but when I say that I am a nutcase?

Not only can you not see god there is also NO EVIDENCE for god.

There is a difference between not being able to see something and having evidence to validize the existence of something.

Atoms: Not able to see them but their existence have been proven through evidence, testing and thousands of scientific experiments.

God: Not able to see and we do not have any evidence for him either, just like unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster. Therefor there is no valid reason to validate his existence.

The difference is, that we can observe these things

You cannot really observe things that you cannot see. You can test and draw a hypothesis, you can never be 100% sure.

100% certainty is very impractical
You cannot be 100% certain that you are not a fish in a tank with electrodes stuck into your big brain, making you believe you are actually human.

Yes, that is true. You can never be certain. But what I don't like is people always hate on religouse people and just think they are idiots.

So it's an emotional thing
I agree, but talking about how we can't be sure there's no god is not exactly helping your case.
Because it's a silly argument.
Silly people can be seen as idiots

You see my point?

Yes, I clearly see your point.

But you cannot rule out God, you cannot rule out anything.
But for me, a creator of the universe makes more sence then something from nothing for no reason.

I'm not ruling out god
I'm just withholding belief until I see some proper evidence

"But for me, a creator of the universe makes more sence then something from nothing for no reason. "
But then you're not searching for facts, you're just searching for something that makes sense to you, right?

Not really, I do not just blindly follow anything.
I was once an atheist until I came to ponder.

The big bang is not really a fact, its a theory.
There are no pictures, you cannot test it and there is no way to tell if it ever happend.
But I assume you believe it happend?

Let's get some definitions in place

Evolution is fact
A scientific theory is a proven model that explains something

From what I know, the same goes for big bang cosmology. It's the best model we currently have to explain the origin of the current universe.

What if all galaxies just popped up, and began moving? There is absolutely no way you can prove it, none.

(yeah, that does sound silly, but its just another rough example)

Yes, what if
And what if you're a fish in a fish tank

Again, absolutely pointless to make that argument.
Science doesn't deal in absolutes, because we are not omniscient beings.

And I see no point in discussing what if when there's a perfectly valid way of finding out things, that is also practical
Modern science. And it works.

It's the best way we have of finding out how the universe works. There are limitations, but only because there are things we cannot test.
In my opinion, if it cannot be tested by definition then it has no real impact on the universe, and is therefore utterly irrelevant

And thats where you get stuck.
If you try to prove everything by using human science, good luck. Something omnipotent surely wouldn't use human science.