Is The Big Bang Really Proof Of Gods Existence?

[Benjamin8o8]

Now enough with Santa Claus and fairy tales. I´m amusing we´re all rational people here, so atheist get back to Cecilianus. My brother in Christ is dropping challenging questions for you “non”-believers. I am here to learn not to interrupt.

 

[JDaniel]

The default position with any claim is non belief.

Nonsense. The so-called default position with any claim is the willing suspension of disbelief. Then, it’s up to the claimant to provide support for the fuller belief.

There is none for god.

Not so. There is plenty of support for the belief in God. This forum is littered with such support. The atheist wants to ignore the support or deny it.

jd

 

[WillieWonka]

Nonsense. The so-called default position with any claim is the willing suspension of disbelief. Then, it’s up to the claimant to provide support for the fuller belief.

Not so. There is plenty of support for the belief in God. This forum is littered with such support. The atheist wants to ignore the support or deny it.

jd

Can you provide the most potent bit of that litter?

 

[JDaniel]

I have not made any cliam’s.

What i said was there is no evidence to suggest there is anything supernatural going on in our brain. Thats not a claim, its a simple fact.

I am not claiming the brain is only physical, i am saying there is zero evidence to suggest otherwise.

But, Chuck, that IS a claim; it is not yet a fact. Since you do not have perfect knowledge that there is nothing supernatural going on, it cannot be anything but a “claim.” If you had perfect knowledge of every thing about the brain, then, and only then, would your claim not be a claim.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

God is someone you enter into a personal relationship with, not a proposition you find “evidence” for. That is the starting-point for religious belief. We believe in God because we have come to know Him (and like all proper names, even fictional ones, “God” should be capitalized - otherwise it looks like what you are rejecting is not God but rather a species of substances called “god”, which may be true for Greek polytheism but not for Christianity).

But, Cecilianus, you don’t seem to realize that the dispensation with the capital letter “G” - by many atheists - is an active disrespecting! (I think that if they did not disrespect God, or His name, they might get more respect here themselves.)

jd

 

[j1akey]

But, Cecilianus, you don’t seem to realize that the dispensation with the capital letter “G” - by many atheists - is an active disrespecting! (I think that if they did not disrespect God, or His name, they might get more respect here themselves.)

Well actually, while I can’t speak for anyone else but sometimes I’m just a lazy typer. Either way I usually do try to catch myself on the capital letters even if I do forget that it’s supposed to be capitalized but more because I’m not always paying attention to having perfect grammar.

 

[JDaniel]

Whether you can grasp it or not is irrelevant. It’s true, and you can’t reject scientific facts just because you don’t understand them. Science is not philosophy; it is an authoritative discipline that gives us real knowledge. Our model of the Big Bang - an event which we know happened - tells us that primordial black holes were emitted. Gamma-ray astronomers are now looking for them, for empirical verification.

Tell them they’re near the “edge”.

jd

 

[WillieWonka]

But, Cecilianus, you don’t seem to realize that the dispensation with the capital letter “G” - by many atheists - is an active disrespecting! (I think that if they did not disrespect God, or His name, they might get more respect here themselves.)

jd

What is Vishnu? Gnesh? Shiva?

 

[JDaniel]

Either way I think religious fundamentalism is bad regardless of what religion it actually comes from.

Why? Without a “wall of words”!

jd

 

[Cecilianus]

But, Cecilianus, you don’t seem to realize that the dispensation with the capital letter “G” - by many atheists - is an active disrespecting! (I think that if they did not disrespect God, or His name, they might get more respect here themselves.)

jd

It always strikes me as rather curious that people can claim to not believe in God and yet they seem to hate Him so strongly - logically, the two attitudes shouldn’t be compatible. I really haven’t the slightest animosity towards Prester John - even though he probably did not exist throughout the entire ~400 year time frame that they were looking for him…

If it is just a case of lazy typing, it seems rather funny that God is the only grammatical victim.

 

[Cecilianus]

What is Vishnu? Gnesh? Shiva?

Don’t know. Not really important. Who would give the primitive mythologies of a single nation the same credibilitiy as a universal belief held by every nation at every time?

As for possibilities as to who they are, they could be (1) angels who, like us, adore their Creator (a claim made by the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh scripture), (2) the demons who deceived the Hindus into worshiping them (“the gods of the Gentiles are devils”), (3) fictions invented by and believed in by a primitive civilization to explain the cosmos, (4) fairy tales - that is, stories they tell because they like to tell stories, as do all healthy people (which is a probably true explanation for the origin of Ganesh), (5) names they give, or attempts to understand, the most high God. (The last possibility may be true for the Shaivite and Vaishnavite sects, although they are still understanding God in a very incorrect manner, especially regarding God’s goodness, which is not something that all Hindus believe in and certainly not a quality obviously possessed by Shiva the destroyer.)

 

[WillieWonka]

Don’t know. Not really important. Who would give the primitive mythologies of a single nation the same credibilitiy as a universal belief held by every nation at every time?

As for possibilities as to who they are, they could be (1) angels who, like us, adore their Creator (a claim made by the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh scripture), (2) the demons who deceived the Hindus into worshiping them (“the gods of the Gentiles are devils”), (3) fictions invented by and believed in by a primitive civilization to explain the cosmos, (4) fairy tales - that is, stories they tell because they like to tell stories, as do all healthy people (which is a probably true explanation for the origin of Ganesh), (5) names they give, or attempts to understand, the most high God. (The last possibility may be true for the Shaivite and Vaishnavite sects, although they are still understanding God in a very incorrect manner, especially regarding God’s goodness, which is not something that all Hindus believe in and certainly not a quality obviously possessed by Shiva the destroyer.)

You don’t know? The are Hindu Gods.

 

[murphjos]

No i mean why can two catholics that are both best pals with god have such different views of the dude?

More lazy typing or deliberate disrespect? (hint: 8 key strokes in “the dude” and 4 in “God”) I have been lurking on these boards for years. I notice that most of the atheists posting are excellent apologists for their belief, or lack there of. But they also tend to be fairly sarcastic and disrespectful. I try to remember that to someone completely lacking in faith, believers are superstitious and backwards. I wonder if some of them even suspect us of faking it or fooling ourselves. It must hard for them not be sarcastic and even harder for them to show respect for a name that holds no meaning to them. Faith and submission come only with grace. There but for the grace of God go I…… (and I went there for a number of years).

 

[JDaniel]

Yes. They are mentioned in ancient folklore and are documented in ancient writing, I believe this literature to be an accurate account. Engravings of them even survive from ancient times.

Willie:

You really need to read - with a good dictionary right beside you - Wikipedia, on the subject of Unicorns. Wikipedia is the non-theist’s bible, of sorts, isn’t it? Wikipedia indicates that Unicorns were mythological creatures. Only morons, and, I mean that term in a very scientific way, have said that the God of the Christians is “mythological”.

Intelligent Atheists deny Him, or His existence, but, they don’t call Him “mythological”. There are no historical accounts that would allow that to make sense. The Biblico-historical accounts are either denied or criticized as simply written by men, but, not mythological. In fact, much of man’s early history is Biblico-historical.

jd

 

[WillieWonka]

Willie:

You really need to read - with a good dictionary right beside you - Wikipedia, on the subject of Unicorns. Wikipedia is the non-theist’s bible, of sorts, isn’t it? Wikipedia indicates that Unicorns were mythological creatures. Only morons, and, I mean that term in a very scientific way, have said that the God of the Christians is “mythological”.

Intelligent Atheists deny Him, or His existence, but, they don’t call Him “mythological”. There are no historical accounts that would allow that to make sense. The Biblico-historical accounts are either denied or criticized as simply written by men, but, not mythological. In fact, much of man’s early history is Biblico-historical.

jd

I have no indication Wikipedia is a bible for non-theists. Why do you suggest that? Is it an authority on god?

Why are you concerned with what morons say about Christians?

Did someone say god was mythological? Who?

 

[JDaniel]

Can you provide the most potent bit of that litter?

Willie:

Much of that litter is a spread-out compendium of the arguments related to this one argument: from motion. In such movements as driving a nail into wood, there is no actual infinity in the series of causes here and now operating in such motion. Therefore, being finite, the series must come to an end. This means that there must be a Prime Mover.

This potent bit of litter is further grounded on the following two premises: (1) whatever is moved is moved by something other than itself, and (2), a series of essentially subordinated movers cannot be actually infinite.

From the above, by inductions resulting from dialectics formed by a proper understanding of motion, we are able to induce that in any finite series of essentially subordinated movers, there must be a Prime Mover. Since the Prime Mover has attributes that are essentially determinates of God, such as indivisibility, immobility, absolute oneness, and others, we understand that what we call the Prime Mover is God.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Well actually, while I can’t speak for anyone else but sometimes I’m just a lazy typer. Either way I usually do try to catch myself on the capital letters even if I do forget that it’s supposed to be capitalized but more because I’m not always paying attention to having perfect grammar.

You’re right; I have noticed that about you. Usually, you are very respectful. That’s why I enjoy debating with you.

jd

 

[WillieWonka]

Willie:

Much of that litter is a spread-out compendium of the arguments related to this one argument: from motion. In such movements as driving a nail into wood, there is no actual infinity in the series of causes here and now operating in such motion. Therefore, being finite, the series must come to an end. This means that there must be a Prime Mover.

This potent bit of litter is further grounded on the following two premises: (1) whatever is moved is moved by something other than itself, and (2), a series of essentially subordinated movers cannot be actually infinite.

From the above, by inductions resulting from dialectics formed by a proper understanding of motion, we are able to induce that in any finite series of essentially subordinated movers, there must be a Prime Mover. Since the Prime Mover has attributes that are essentially determinates of God, such as indivisibility, immobility, absolute oneness, and others, we understand that what we call the Prime Mover is God.

jd

And your understanding of infinity is sufficient to support those conclusions? What does Wikipedia say? Isn’t that the theist’s bible?

 

[JDaniel]

More lazy typing or deliberate disrespect? (hint: 8 key strokes in “the dude” and 4 in “God”) I have been lurking on these boards for years. I notice that most of the atheists posting are excellent apologists for their belief, or lack there of. But they also tend to be fairly sarcastic and disrespectful. I try to remember that to someone completely lacking in faith, believers are superstitious and backwards. I wonder if some of them even suspect us of faking it or fooling ourselves. It must hard for them not be sarcastic and even harder for them to show respect for a name that holds no meaning to them. Faith and submission come only with grace. There but for the grace of God go I…… (and I went there for a number of years).

So did I - for almost 25 years! But, even though I was a definitional atheist, I was always respectful and worked hard to maintain that image. My preference was to seriously debate with theists, not to sling disrespect around as though it was some kind of solid argument.

Interesting, but, I believe that Cecilianus has seen the Lanciano Miracle. That is an incredibly powerful bit of God that helped him, and many others, strengthen their beliefs. I was a high school science teacher. I taught biology, chemistry and physical science. I must admit that it was modern science, for the most part, that led me away from God. Now, though, it is partially modern science that has brought me back home. Thank God.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

And your understanding of infinity is sufficient to support those conclusions? What does Wikipedia say? Isn’t that the theist’s bible?

It doesn’t say anything that would support me, a Theist. IT IS NOT THE THEIST’S BIBLE. That is irrefutable, despite your sarcasm. My understanding of “infinity” is spread out on a finite number of the most recent posts herein. Do the work yourself, just for that! Then, get to bed!

jd