Understanding Atheism?

[Robertsxxx]

I know almost all of them will say they want God to exist .

No I don’t, at least not the Biblical God.
Furthermore, atheism is a lack of belief in God(s); a lack of belief can’t be true.

Though from what I’ve seen some dictionaries give different definitions of atheism:

1. lack of belief in God(s)
2. belief that God(s) does not exist

 

[AaronK88]

I used to be a militant atheist. Funny how things change. I completely understand the mindset, more so than people born and raised with religion.

 

[Sarpedon]

Why do you think so many atheists come across as “angry?” I recently did a Flair search on Facebook for “atheism” and practically every one what came up went along the lines of “Get your f****** religion out of my life!” One even had a stick figure throwing the symbols of world religions into a trash can.

By contrast, searching for “Jesus” returned mostly things along the lines of “Jesus is my hero!” There were obviously a few sacriligious jokes but very few if any against atheism.

Just wondering if you have observed the same things, and if you have any guesses as to why this seems to happen.

Of course, I know this is separate from the actual logical question about God’s existence.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why do you think so many atheists come across as “angry?” I recently did a Flair search on Facebook for “atheism” and practically every one what came up went along the lines of “Get your f****** religion out of my life!” One even had a stick figure throwing the symbols of world religions into a trash can.

By contrast, searching for “Jesus” returned mostly things along the lines of “Jesus is my hero!” There were obviously a few sacriligious jokes but very few if any against atheism.

Just wondering if you have observed the same things, and if you have any guesses as to why this seems to happen.

Of course, I know this is separate from the actual logical question about God’s existence.

the veneer of rationalism on many atheist is no thicker than their skin, i am not suprised that you see that.

 

[ishii]

Thanks for the reply. You made the claim the Japan is “one of the most atheistic countries on the planet.” I asked you what caused you to make that claim, as it differs from my experience over there - I would say that most Japanese, far from being “one of the most atheistic countries on the planet” is actually a country where most believe in a kami-sama (God). Just because they may or may not believe in a ritual action that takes place at a Shinto shrine doesn’t make them atheists! There are Christians who don’t believe in or downplay certain rituals or even certain tenets of the faith such as the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (I am not one of them), but who nonetheless believe in God. So I think it a stretch to take one’s experience among primarily younger people living around Roppongi (of all places) and apply it to the rest of Japan. That is similar, I suppose to hanging out with young people in say, a certain part of L.A. and assuming that they represent everyone else in California. I think a lot of those young people in question don’t really care about God or religion, as they are too preoccupied about other things: shopping, their latest relationship, sex, money, their job, perhaps. That isn’t necessarily any kind of thought-out atheism. I would wonder if the existence of God (or not) even enters their mind.

A larger point about religion in Japan: I would say that while Japan is NOT an “atheistic country”, I would say it is a country of believers in God, who distrust organized religion. This is perhaps partly due to the memory of world war 2 experience - the negative association of militarization of shintoism and the effect on the consciousness of the Japanese when they were told that the “tenno” (emperor) is not, in fact, a living god. More recently, the experience of cults in Japan such as Aum (as mentioned in your reply) and also the politicization of religion in contemporary Japan by the branch of Buddhism called soka gakkai (known as the political party “komeito”). All these things have helped sour the Japanese attitude toward organized religion. The task of teaching Japanese about Christianity has fallen to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other type of sects which, while they catch a few, probably mostly underscore most Japanese’s suspicion of organized religion. The harvest is great but the laborer’s are few.

Ishii

 

[love4mary]

I guess if one goes through life not asking any questions about the origins of life, not really caring how it all started, then that would be a great definition of the kind of Atheist I WAS.

Then one day, I started to ask questions, and like any detective novel would teach , I studied things BACKWARDS.

I started at Man and traced evolution backwards in time till I got to the Single Celled Organism that crawled out of the Primordial Ooze. Atheism could NOT answer the main question of Where did that Single Cell come from. Space on this thread does not allow for me to get into the Complexity and Balance of Cells.

Then the Big Bang Theory. Hay, I think it entirely possible that it truly happened, but that pesky question of Where did the gases and space dust come from could NOT be answered by Atheism.

Cellular life and the balance of the Universe just canNOT be explained by the Atheist point of view, I should know, I was once an Atheist. If there IS an explanation to this, please tell me.

Logically, Atheism just does not answer the very most basic of questions. HOW DID IT ALL START!!

 

[Robertsxxx]

Atheism just does not answer the very most basic of questions

YES, it doesn’t because IT’S NOT SUPPOSED TO!
Atheism is the lack of belief in God THAT"S it! It doesn’t have unjustified books of dogma that claim to explain the origins of life. It’s just a lack of belief in god(s). If you want to find out how life started then you can actually research or try to look for an answer whether being a theist or atheist.

 

[crowonsnow]

Logically, Atheism just does not answer the very most basic of questions. HOW DID IT ALL START!!

If “starting” is important, then neither does theism, unless one has an explanatiion for how their gods got “started.”

Theism and atheism have the same answer, namely that the default setting is for something to already be there, either a god or a universe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

YES, it doesn’t because IT’S NOT SUPPOSED TO!
Atheism is the lack of belief in God THAT"S it!

that is called ‘negative’ or 'weak atheism.

its structured that way in an attempt to avoid the arguments of First Cause.

as we use reason and data from the observable universe to believe in other things, it is inconsistent to believe tht we cant know if there is a G-d.

i assume you believe in a big bang, asia, the asteroid belt, and the dark side of the moon. all things i assume that you have no direct observational evidence of these things, yet i assume you believe they exist.

why choose to disbelieve in just this one instance, yet not in others?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If “starting” is important, then neither does theism, unless one has an explanatiion for how their gods got “started.”

Theism and atheism have the same answer, namely that the default setting is for something to already be there, either a god or a universe.

the chain of causality ends at 1x10(-35) seconds after the big bang, when a mathematical regression from present conditions posits an infinite ‘moment’, for lack of a better word, in which there was no time or physical laws. causality relies on these properties of the universe, for its existence, if they did not exist, than neither could causality. so infinite regression is not possible.

 

[Robertsxxx]

that is called ‘negative’ or 'weak atheism.”

You’re right on the weak* definition, I was using my own position in that point. Moreover, even with strong atheism you do not get a package of beliefs to go with it when you “convert”. You can believe in whatever else that you think is most possible. It could be the Big Bang theory, Inflation Universe theory(-ies) or some other explanation not currently known. However, I do not want to give any statements on strong atheism because I might misrepresent that position.

i assume you believe in a big bang, asia, the asteroid belt, and the dark side of the moon. all things i assume that you have no direct observational evidence of these things, yet i assume you believe they exist.”

I accept the Bib Bang cosmology as the most likely theory so far because there are certain testable aspects that support this idea. If you find a better one I would reconsider.
Did you mean Asia? Anyway, I believe, first, because I’ve been there, second I can actually get pictures of it (same with the dark side of the moon); furthermore, talk to people who live there, etc. It’s not like somebody saying there is country of Narnia & presto I believe. With the previous cases I can actually go check whether those places/things exist.

“why choose to disbelieve in just this one instance, yet not in others”

I disbelieve in many other cases on various subjects, or did you have anything specific in mind?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re right on the weak* definition, I was using my own position in that point. Moreover, even with strong atheism you do not get a package of beliefs to go with it when you “convert”. You can believe in whatever else that you think is most possible. It could be the Big Bang theory, Inflation Universe theory(-ies) or some other explanation not currently known. However, I do not want to give any statements on strong atheism because I might misrepresent that position.

im trying to say that there is no appreciable difference between the two positions, or at least no practical difference

I accept the Bib Bang cosmology as the most likely theory so far because there are certain testable aspects that support this idea. If you find a better one I would reconsider.
Did you mean Asia? Anyway, I believe, first, because I’ve been there, second I can actually get pictures of it (same with the dark side of the moon); furthermore, talk to people who live there, etc. It’s not like somebody saying there is country of Narnia & presto I believe. With the previous cases I can actually go check whether those places/things exist.

no i meant asia, i reserve capital letters for references to G-d and other special ideas.

first let me say that if you believe in some things based on people
telling you about them, then why not believe in G-d? surely people have told you about Him

further a picture of something is not the actual thing, you just have to trust that it is what you have been told that it is

unless you are directly physically observing something, then its really about trusting the information you received

I disbelieve in many other cases on various subjects, or did you have anything specific in mind?

sure, anything that you either have not or cannot physically observe. anything outside your direct observational experience,

 

[Robertsxxx]

im trying to say that there is no appreciable difference between the two positions, or at least “

So can you provide support for your theory since you think I should accept it?

no practical difference”

what is your definition of practical in this case?

first let me say that if you believe in some things based on people
telling you about them, then why not believe in G-d? surely people have told you about Him”

1. Which god are we talking about now? People have told me about a lot. Ironically just this morning somebody stopped me on the street & started advertising books on Hindu gods. Decisions decisions… What makes your more likely to be the “right” one? Since I’m pretty sure you were referring to a specific deity.
2. other people accounts are important; nevertheless, after I hear those I can go double check whether a specific place exists or not by using a different method of investigation. Can I do that with heaven for instance?

unless you are directly physically observing something, then its really about trusting the information you received”

I agree, I mean all the numerous amount of evidence supporting the existence of Asia are probably lying. Furthermore, I see no counter-evidence claiming Asia does not exist which would have some support + Yet I have not seen, heard, felt, smelt or touched Your god or indirect evidence that would lead to him, nor anything else except a book & lots of people claiming it exists.
Since you are applying this kind of reasoning then if I tell you that Allah created the universe & wants you to worship Him you should convert right now since a person told you about Him, furthermore, there are lots more people that would tell you about him. Have you converted & saved your soul yet?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So can you provide support for your theory since you think I should accept it?

 

[Robertsxxx]

Oh boy… this will be long… .

“obviously in the Catholic forums i am referring to the Judeo-Christian God”

Just making sure.
Why should I accept your god on word basis? I’ve heard of a bunch of others as well.

”yet those prophecies, from many varying sources, converged and were fulfilled in the person of Christ.”

Can you please give specific examples of the prophesies you think are valid?

”there is no logical reason to accept what people say concerning any other phenomenon but not to accept it concerning Faith.”

Are you implying you just accept everything other people tell you, since there is obviously no way to make sure it’s true?
I partly agree: even if I can touch myself now & make sure I exist, this might all be an illusion; nevertheless, if I don’t trust even the basic of my senses (which can be reaffirmed by other people) then we have absolutely nothing. Nevertheless, even if/when I rely on those senses I still see no God or that which would be evidence for his (& especially Catholic version) existence.

“why do you believe they are telling you the truth about asia, but billions of theists are lying about G-d?”

Besides people I can also rely on technology to see whether a certain place exists or not. I am still not able to do that with god(s). If you will manage to develop such technology, I would gladly give it a try.

”but since you have been to asia, what about x-rays, do you have evidence that they exist?, have you seen one? no, but still you believe.”

Sight isn’t the only sense we have. We can’t see them because they are of a different spectrum. If you believe X-rays exist just on faith, you are ignorant & gullable. Unlike with god, I can see results of x-ray interaction directly with me by viewing a developed film of a jaw shot at the dentist. The film does not just appear by me sitting behind the pc; it is particular to certain circumstances where the supposed x-rays are created. I see no such activity that would be particular to your god without having some other explanation.

“the fact that we exist is evidence that He exists “

The fact that WE exist is evidence that WE exist, now please provide some support for god & specifically your god.

“Aquinas’ First Cause argument”

1. So… what caused the first cause?
2. you are making a wrong assumption that matter never existed at some point, which might not be the case
3. Furthermore, even if there is a “first cause” there is no need for it to be a god. Moreover, even if it created the universe there would be no need for it to still interact with it. I have lamp on my table, sure somebody made it since lamps don’t grow on trees; nevertheless, I have never met that person (considering the factory wasn’t totally mechanised) nor will ever know who it was + they don’t care about this lamp either.

“Islam doesn’t have the unique claim, as above, of the fulfillment of convergent prophecies. it is like all other religions, false, on that basis.”

So your only evidence are prophesies? Which ones exactly?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why should I accept your god on word basis? I’ve heard of a bunch of others as well.
Can you please give specific examples of the prophesies you think are valid?

sure,

the list has dozens and dozens so let me post some sites that deal with them. i could find many more if you need them

clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml
christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html
allabouttruth.org/messianic-prophecy.htm

Are you implying you just accept everything other people tell you, since there is obviously no way to make sure it’s true?

no, i am saying that information about faith should be treated equally with any other information concerning a phenomenon that you have not physically observed

I partly agree: even if I can touch myself now & make sure I exist, this might all be an illusion; nevertheless, if I don’t trust even the basic of my senses (which can be reaffirmed by other people) then we have absolutely nothing. Nevertheless, even if/when I rely on those senses I still see no God or that which would be evidence for his (& especially Catholic version) existence.

that is why we cant trust our senses to provide information about phenomenon that we are not directly equipped to observe.

Besides people I can also rely on technology to see whether a certain place exists or not. I am still not able to do that with god(s). If you will manage to develop such technology, I would gladly give it a try.

in this quote you are just switching what you trust from people to machines.

Sight isn’t the only sense we have. We can’t see them because they are of a different spectrum. If you believe X-rays exist just on faith, you are ignorant & gullable. Unlike with god, I can see results of x-ray interaction directly with me by viewing a developed film of a jaw shot at the dentist. The film does not just appear by me sitting behind the pc; it is particular to certain circumstances where the supposed x-rays are created. I see no such activity that would be particular to your god without having some other explanation.

you see x-rays by their effect on the film, by the same token you can reason the existence of G-d from His effect, the universe

The fact that WE exist is evidence that WE exist, now please provide some support for god & specifically your god.

1. So… what caused the first cause?

sure,

when we mathematically regress from current observable conditions in the universe we reach a point at approximately 1x10 (-35) seconds from the big bang, where the mathematical values stretch to infinity, prior to that we can show nothing, or we can say that science posits an infinite ‘moment’, for lack of a better word, when no time, space, or physical laws existed.

from that we can infer that prior to the moment of expansion that there was an infinity that was both prior too, and separate from the universe. i cant say directly that such an infinity was G-d, but those are the qualities we claim for G-d.

but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its is probably a duck

so the first cause from a that regression from current observed conditions shows that the first cause was at least a self existent infinity, prior to and outside the universe.

1. you are making a wrong assumption that matter never existed at some point, which might not be the case

actually the regressed math shows that matter did not exist prior to the expansion, remember the ‘infinite moment’ there was no time, or physical laws. we observe an explosion of matter, but not a bomb, so to speak.

further the the nuclear cycle of stars would also seem to rule out always existing matter, when a stars fusion process reaches iron, it cant maintain fusion, eventually, all the matter in the universe would become iron, if matter has always existed than it should all be iron by now.

1. Furthermore, even if there is a “first cause” there is no need for it to be a god.

correct, but we know it was a self-existent infinity, which brings us back to the quacks like a duck theory

Moreover, even if it created the universe there would be no need for it to still interact with it. I have lamp on my table, sure somebody made it since lamps don’t grow on trees; nevertheless, I have never met that person (considering the factory wasn’t totally mechanised) nor will ever know who it was + they don’t care about this lamp either.

what does one create for no purpose at all, the purpose of the lamp was for the factory to make a profit, i assume you have it to provide light

i know of nothing that is made, that has no purpose. it seems nonsensical on the face of it to create something for no purpose. much less an entire universe and billions of free willed beings.

So your only evidence are prophesies? Which ones exactly?

no, but for our purposes it is all i need, the fulfillment of so many prophecies, from different sources, converging to be filled in the person of Christ make it all but a mathematical certainty.

 

[Robertsxxx]

“the list has dozens and dozens so let me post some sites that deal with them. i could find many more if you need them”

Choose some to be more specific so we could discuss it. Most of the Biblical Messianic prophesies are too vague, some written only after the event happened. Furthermore, the purpose of the NT is to “fulfill” the prophesy: highly biased, you need to prove that a divine Jesus existed, the only source for this character is in the biased Bible.

“no, i am saying that information about faith should be treated equally with any other information concerning a phenomenon that you have not physically observed”

I remember reading a good statements in some of the other threads: there is a difference in faith (without evidence) & confidence (with evidence).

“that is why we cant trust our senses to provide information about phenomenon that we are not directly equipped to observe.”

Then you have absolutely nothing else to judge your reality with & should be believing all kinds of ****. What are your criteria for judging anything as being then?

“in this quote you are just switching what you trust from people to machines. “

& what is wrong with that? I can double check using techs that Asia actually exists, can you do that with your god?

“you see x-rays by their effect on the film, by the same token you can reason the existence of G-d from His effect, the universe”

The film is a result of the rays, because we know it won’t just appear out of nowhere. Show me such an example with god for an event to be specifically a result of interaction with him & not a result of something else.

”so the first cause from a that regression from current observed conditions shows that the first cause was at least a self existent infinity, prior to and outside the universe.”

There are particles created all the time in vacuums without nothing to cause it, so? Furthermore, you admitted that you did not know what exactly what is was, but you just labelled it god for no reason. You took a gap which a theory doesn’t currently cover & labelled whatever you felt like. I still vote for the invisible pink unicorn.

”further the the nuclear cycle of stars would also seem to rule out always existing matter, when a stars fusion process reaches iron, it cant maintain fusion, eventually, all the matter in the universe would become iron, if matter has always existed than it should all be iron by now.”

Sadly I am not a cosmologist to actually answer to this.

“which brings us back to the quacks like a duck theory”

Or it gets us back to “I don’t know so god did it”

“what does one create for no purpose at all, the purpose of the lamp was for the factory to make a profit, i assume you have it to provide light”

That’s because a lamp is artificial, it is not created by natural processes; however all the things in nature can be observed to.

”i know of nothing that is made, that has no purpose.”

Just curious, what is a purpose of a flower?

“fulfillment of so many prophecies, from different sources, converging to be filled in the person of Christ “

many unclear, vague prophesies; the only source I seen is the bible; you need to prove Jesus existed prior to saying he fulfilled a prophecy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Choose some to be more specific so we could discuss it.

The Messianic Prophecy (paraphrased) Where the prophecy appears in the Old Testament (written between 1450 BC and 430BC) Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy in the New Testament (written between 45 and 95 AD)
The Messiah will be the offspring (descendant) of the woman (Eve) Genesis 3:15 Galatians 4:4
The Messiah will be a descendant of Abraham, through whom everyone on earth will be blessed Genesis 12:3; 18:18 Acts 3:25,26
The Messiah will be a descendant of Judah Genesis 49:10 Matthew 1:2 and Luke 3:33
The Messiah will be a prophet like Moses Deuteronomy 18:15-19 Acts 3:22,23
The Messiah will be the Son of God Psalm 2:7 Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22
The Messiah will be raised from the dead (resurrected) Psalm 16:10,11 Matthew 28:5-9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:4-7; John 20:11-16; Acts 1:3 and 2:32
The Messiah crucifixion experience Psalm 22 (contains 11 prophecies—not all listed here) Matthew 27:34-50 and John 19:17-30
The Messiah will be sneered at and mocked Psalm 22:7 Luke 23:11,35-39
The Messiah will be pierced through hands and feet Psalm 22:16 Luke 23:33 and 24:36-39;
John 19:18 and 20:19-20,24-27
The Messiah’s bones will not be broken (a person’s legs were usually broken after being crucified to speed up their death) Psalm 22:17 and 34:20 John 19:31-33,36
Men Will Gamble for the Messiah’s clothing Psalm 22:18 Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23,24
The Messiah will accused by false witnesses Psalm 35:11 Matthew 26:59,60 and Mark 14:56,57
The Messiah will be hated without a cause Psalm 35:19 and 69:4 John 15:23-25
The Messiah will be betrayed by a friend Psalm 41:9 John 13:18,21
The Messiah will ascend to heaven (at the right hand of God) Psalm 68:18 Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; 2:33-35; 3:20-21; 5:31,32; 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20,21; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22 . . . sorry, we got carried away!
The Messiah will be given vinegar and gall to drink Psalm 69:21 Matthew 27:34; Mark 15:23; John 19:29,30
Great kings will pay homage and tribute to the Messiah Psalm 72:10,11 Matthew 2:1-11
The Messiah is a “stone the builders rejected” who will become the “head cornerstone” Psalm 118:22,23 and Isaiah 28:16 Matthew 21:42,43; Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8
The Messiah will be a descendant of David Psalm 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5,6; 33:15,16 Luke 1:32,33
The Messiah will be a born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35
The Messiah’s first spiritual work will be in Galilee Isaiah 9:1-7 Matthew 4:12-16
The Messiah will make the blind see, the deaf hear, etc. Isaiah 35:5-6 Many places. Also see Matthew 11:3-6 and John 11:47
The Messiah will be beaten, mocked, and spat upon Isaiah 50:6 Matthew 26:67 and 27:26-31
The “Gospel according to Isaiah” Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
People will hear and not believe the “arm of the LORD” (Messiah) Isaiah 53:1 John 12:37,38
The Messiah will be rejected Isaiah 53:3 Matthew 27:20-25; Mark 15:8-14; Luke 23:18-23; John 19:14,15
The Messiah will be killed Isaiah 53:5-9 Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37-39; Luke 23:46; John 19:30
The Messiah will be silent in front of his accusers Isaiah 53:7 Matthew 26:62,63 and 27:12-14
The Messiah will be buried with the rich Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:59,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:52,53; John 19:38-42
The Messiah will be crucified with criminals Isaiah 53:12 Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32,33
The Messiah is part of the new and everlasting covenant Isaiah 55:3-4 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6-13
The Messiah will be our intercessor (intervene for us and plead on our behalf) Isaiah 59:16 Hebrews 9:15
The Messiah has two missions Isaiah 61:1-3 (first mission ends at “. . . year of the LORD’s favor”) First mission: Luke 4:16-21; Second mission: to be fulfilled at the end of the world
The Messiah will come at a specific time Daniel 9:25-26 Galatians 4:4 and Ephesians 1:10
The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7
The Messiah will enter Jerusalem riding a donkey Zechariah 9:9 Matthew 21:1-11
The Messiah will be sold for 30 pieces of silver Zechariah 11:12,13 Matthew 26:15 with Matthew 27:3-10
The Messiah will forsaken by His disciples Zechariah 13:7 Matthew 26:31,56
The Messiah will enter the Temple with authority Malachi 3:1 Matthew 21:12 and Luke 19:45

here are some for starters

some written only after the event happened

.

why do you believe that?

Furthermore, the purpose of the NT is to “fulfill” the prophesy: highly biased, you need to prove that a divine Jesus existed, the only source for this character is in the biased Bible.

darwin wrote the origin of the species to describe the process of evolution that he saw, he didn’t write it to make evolutionary processes a fact. they already were, he noticed and described them.

to be continued

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Choose some to be more specific so we could discuss it.

here is the continuation

the fulfillment of convergent prophecy is proof of the Divinity of Christ

I remember reading a good statements in some of the other threads: there is a difference in faith (without evidence) & confidence (with evidence).

same thing, it just depends on what you call evidence. which is my point you accept all sorts of evidence concerning other phenomenon, but when it comes to religion, it is ‘biased’ or ‘vague’ or not accepted for some other reason you wouldnt apply to other sets of information

Then you have absolutely nothing else to judge your reality with & should be believing all kinds of ****. What are your criteria for judging anything as being then?

thats jthe slippery slope problem, you dont need to believe everything you hear, rather you should judge all information to the same standards

& what is wrong with that? I can double check using techs that Asia actually exists, can you do that with your god?

until you are there you can only trust that people and technology are correct, you dont know for absolutely sure until you physically observe its existence for yourself

The film is a result of the rays, because we know it won’t just appear out of nowhere.

funny that, but why is it acceptable to know that x-ray film doesnt develops for no reason, but an entire universe can just pop out of nowhere. see, you accept one thing, but not the other, but you dont have a logical reason to do so

Show me such an example with god for an event to be specifically a result of interaction with him & not a result of something else.

once again the fact a universe exists, x-ray film develops from an interaction with x-rays, a universe exists as a result of G-d

There are particles created all the time in vacuums without nothing to cause it, so?

thats not true, some theories say that they do, but none of those are proven, in fact they have changed every few years for several decades now. i am referring to various string theories, m-theories, supergravity etc. remember those are called virtual particles because no one has actually proved their existence

Furthermore, you admitted that you did not know what exactly what is was, but you just labelled it god for no reason

.

nol i am saying that it is remarkably like the qualities we claim for G-d, and that is extremely remarkable in and of its self

You took a gap which a theory doesn’t currently cover & labelled whatever you felt like. I still vote for the invisible pink unicorn.

its not a gap it is actually shown by mathematical regression, it is a self existent infinity, alot like G-d, nothing like a pink unicorn

Sadly I am not a cosmologist to actually answer to this.

look up the solar cycle, it does seem to disprove an always existing universe

Or it gets us back to “I don’t know so god did it”

something remarkably similar to the G-d we claim did it

That’s because a lamp is artificial, it is not created by natural processes; however all the things in nature can be observed to.

artificial or natural has nothing to do with it, it is a function of being a creation, nothing is created without purpose

on a materialistic level all particles have a definite mathematical relationship with all other particles, there is no natural, only hard cold particle interactions

Just curious, what is a purpose of a flower?

it processes carbon dioxide into oxygen. provides food to many animals, and depending on type may be used as medecine

many unclear, vague prophesies; the only source I seen is the bible; you need to prove Jesus existed prior to saying he fulfilled a prophecy.

there is a lot of historical evidence, more than we can discuss here. and i dont think you want to parse through it all.

but remember anything that occurred before you were born you just have to accept the historical evidence. i.e did shakespeare,
aristotle, julius ceasar, hannibal, pliny, or any other historical figure exist?

but if you insist then i will provide said documentary evidence.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is going off topic. Please take side discussions to new or existing threads. Thank you all.