My question to athiests (Yes you)

[Banana Jelly]

Do you have a reason on how the universe formed? Yeah I know its the Big Bang. But, who made the big bang? A atomic bomb cant explode without a reason to explode. Air cant explode without something to make it explode. Now can you guys tell me why you dont believe that a diety made the big bang.

[The spartan]

The universe recycles at a constant rate. It should implode in a few billion years or so and return to that single point of super hot-dense matter. Science happens.

To quote the thread bellow us:

The age of the universe is dated from the big bang, the big bang merely created the universe as we know it, it did not actually create the universe.

[Banana Jelly]

The universe recycles at a constant rate. It should implode in a few billion years or so and return to that single point of super hot-dense matter. Science happens.

There was no "universe" before the big bang.

[Monarchist]

The universe recycles at a constant rate. It should implode in a few billion years or so and return to that single point of super hot-dense matter. Science happens.

Recycling processes have a beginning. I throw the plastic bottle into the green bin, and it is found against two months later in another form. The Ixion Wheel must be spun in the first place for it to spin for all time.

[The spartan]

Recycling processes have a beginning. I throw the plastic bottle into the green bin, and it is found against two months later in another form. The Ixion Wheel must be spun in the first place for it to spin for all time.

There are tons of processes out there that are seemingly incomprehensible to humans, who like to look at things in the finite. I think it is entirely reasonable that the universe has "existed" forever.

There was no "universe" before the big bang.

I edited my original post, the universe has been around before the big bang.

[SigniferOne]

I edited my original post, the universe has been around before the big bang.

Then you simply don't know your science enough. Scientists have said that time and space were created at the big bang.

[Razor]

Then you simply don't know your science enough. Scientists have said that time and space were created at the big bang.

Perhaps the Big Bang was a result of an imploding universe coming together at one point creating so much density that it resulted in the Big Bang? Of course we can't have any evidence before the Big Bang but it wouldn't be illogical.

[Banana Jelly]

The universe recycles at a constant rate. It should implode in a few billion years or so and return to that single point of super hot-dense matter. Science happens.

To quote the thread bellow us:

But how can the big bang "merley" create the universe without actually creating it? So you mean theres something out there that caused the explosion? (IE, god)

[Arch-hereticK]

But how can the big bang "merley" create the universe without actually creating it? So you mean theres something out there that caused the explosion? (IE, god)

How do you know that the materialist energy that created the universe didn't always exist. How do YOU and your ilk have the right to assume that it was magically conjured.

[bushbush]

But how can the big bang "merley" create the universe without actually creating it? So you mean theres something out there that caused the explosion? (IE, god)

before u start licking imaginary god's ass, prove to me this god exists according to scientific method.

[Saladin_2008]

is it dumb to believe in divinity w/o following or associating one's self with a religion (not confirming or denying this is how i believe)

my personal opinion is that organized religion is pointless and causes more harm than good

[MaximiIian]

But how can the big bang "merley" create the universe without actually creating it? So you mean theres something out there that caused the explosion? (IE, god)

Even in admitting that there is a prime mover/uncaused cause, that doesn't necessarily imply that said thing is a deity.
It might be a natural force or something else. Aristotle, who articulated the concept, didn't outright call the prime mover a deity.

I believe it was a deity. But it would be immature of me to judge someone for taking a different view.

[EireEmerald]

The universe recycles at a constant rate. It should implode in a few billion years or so and return to that single point of super hot-dense matter. Science happens.

To quote the thread bellow us:

This has always amused me. Atheists claiming intellectual superiority over religious people when they know all about the universe. We as humans know so little about the universe, so little that we don't even know how little we know, and yet those who deny the existance of god ( something that cannot be proved ) themselves make a statement.

[Kissaki]

who deny the existance of god ( something that cannot be proved )

Personally, what I find amusing is when someone thinks "you can't DISprove God" is a valid argument. As it happens, you can't DISprove Santa either, but like gods, there is first of all no reason to believe it, and second, there are good reasons not to. Personal deities bear all the hallmarks of projection and wishful thinking, and there are very good psychological and anthropological explanations why humans are prone to invent them.

But really, the lack of positive evidence alone is sufficient reason not to believe in gods. Let me put it this way: I deny the existence of gods to about the same extent as I deny the existence of flying pigs. Of course I cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of flying pigs, but until someone brings me something more than hear-say it is perfectly reasonable to assume they do not exist.

[Banana Jelly]

Personally, what I find amusing is when someone thinks "you can't DISprove God" is a valid argument. As it happens, you can't DISprove Santa either, but like gods, there is first of all no reason to believe it, and second, there are good reasons not to. Personal deities bear all the hallmarks of projection and wishful thinking, and there are very good psychological and anthropological explanations why humans are prone to invent them.

But really, the lack of positive evidence alone is sufficient reason not to believe in gods. Let me put it this way: I deny the existence of gods to about the same extent as I deny the existence of flying pigs. Of course I cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of flying pigs, but until someone brings me something more than hear-say it is perfectly reasonable to assume they do not exist.

Then tell me, do you believe in the big bang theory?

[Kissaki]

Then tell me, do you believe in the big bang theory?

I believe in it, yes, on account of the evidence. I do not have faith in it.

I will answer your post, Gertrudius!, when I have more time at my disposal.

[Gertrudius]

Personally, what I find amusing is when someone thinks "you can't DISprove God" is a valid argument. As it happens, you can't DISprove Santa either, but like gods, there is first of all no reason to believe it, and second, there are good reasons not to. Personal deities bear all the hallmarks of projection and wishful thinking, and there are very good psychological and anthropological explanations why humans are prone to invent them.

But really, the lack of positive evidence alone is sufficient reason not to believe in gods. Let me put it this way: I deny the existence of gods to about the same extent as I deny the existence of flying pigs. Of course I cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of flying pigs, but until someone brings me something more than hear-say it is perfectly reasonable to assume they do not exist.

Yet you hold an opinion of superiority that is unjustified. First of all, the physiological constructs that lead to the invention of "religion" are most specifically documented in primitive societies in order to fill needed niches, true or not, into a psychological process. In modern societies there are many other things that can fill these needs, and there is a rise in atheism in modern societies that correlates to it. Yet still, there is something that maintains religion in the face of a lessening psychological dependency on it, why would that be? Possibly because even rational individuals like myself recognize the inherent fallibility in scientific models, which are in no way immutable, and frequently change. One need only look at any scientific field, such as medicine for instance, to realize what complete idiots the human race are. Constantly are longstanding theories and procedure, which by the way have supporting scintific data behind them, are changed in the face of continuing research and evidence. I could provide examples but that's hardly necessary and it permeates all scientific fields.

So because the Big Bang Theory is backed up by supporting evidence, there is no possibility of the interpretation being somehow wrong, even though there is an impossibility of determining whether all of the relevant data has been obtained, and most likely hasn't? What about the research into string theory that indicates the big bang was caused by the collision of two higher dimensional strings, one of which being our universe, yet still can not intrinsically explain what caused the discharge of energy that created the big bang in the first place. Where are your immutable facts now? So please, stop pretending like your scientific "facts" somehow make your position more relevant than someone elses.

In the end, your right that it's inane to argue that god exists because you can't disprove him. No one can disprove a negative, so the point is moot anyways. But seriously Scientific theory is not infallible, so saying that god doesn't exist because of a lack of scientific evidence is just as inane.

Take it easy,

[Arch-hereticK]

But seriously Scientific theory is not infallible, so saying that god doesn't exist because of a lack of scientific evidence is just as inane.

Is there another form of evidence other than scientific?

[Kissaki]

Yet you hold an opinion of superiority that is unjustified. First of all, the physiological constructs that lead to the invention of "religion" are most specifically documented in primitive societies in order to fill needed niches, true or not, into a psychological process. In modern societies there are many other things that can fill these needs, and there is a rise in atheism in modern societies that correlates to it. Yet still, there is something that maintains religion in the face of a lessening psychological dependency on it, why would that be?

For the same reasons, more or less. Tradition is a very powerful factor. I was raised a Christian, and consequently I was a Christian in my childhood. Then I realized that I had no more reason to be a Christian than a Muslim had to be a Muslim, and that a Muslim was just as sure of his faith as a Christian was of his. Feelings of certainty, then, could not be regarded as evidence for anything. Furthermore, the evidence base was exactly the same: holy book plus tradition. When I tried to gauge which religion had the most reasonable base, I was forced to conclude that none of them could be deduced through reason due to the lack of actual evidence (and tradition is not evidence).

Possibly because even rational individuals like myself recognize the inherent fallibility in scientific models, which are in no way immutable, and frequently change.

Of course they frequently change. That is precisely what makes them reliable: the fact that corrections are made tells us that they conform to the evidence. An idea that refuses to change is useless, because it has already made up its mind. It ignores contrary evidence and will only ever acknowledge something if it is in support of the idea.

One need only look at any scientific field, such as medicine for instance, to realize what complete idiots the human race are. Constantly are longstanding theories and procedure, which by the way have supporting scintific data behind them, are changed in the face of continuing research and evidence. I could provide examples but that's hardly necessary and it permeates all scientific fields.

So because the Big Bang Theory is backed up by supporting evidence, there is no possibility of the interpretation being somehow wrong, even though there is an impossibility of determining whether all of the relevant data has been obtained, and most likely hasn't? What about the research into string theory that indicates the big bang was caused by the collision of two higher dimensional strings, one of which being our universe, yet still can not intrinsically explain what caused the discharge of energy that created the big bang in the first place. Where are your immutable facts now? So please, stop pretending like your scientific "facts" somehow make your position more relevant than someone elses.

Now you are appealing to human ignorance. And that is mysteriously the only places God ever resides, in the unknown. To quote Sherlock Holmes: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Or to quote Ben "Yahtzee": "The unstated goal of exploration is to make the whole world boring. Life was at its most interesting when we thought grass huts were a bit hoity-toity and there might be dragons made from raisin-bread over the next hill for all we knew."

Why are these "dragons made from raisin-bread" always beyond the next hill where we haven't checked yet? What can be said of the belief in the possibility of these "dragons made from raisin-bread" that cannot also be said of the belief in an invisible All-Father?

In the end, your right that it's inane to argue that god exists because you can't disprove him. No one can disprove a negative, so the point is moot anyways. But seriously Scientific theory is not infallible, so saying that god doesn't exist because of a lack of scientific evidence is just as inane.

Take it easy,

But that was not what I was saying at all. I am NOT saying that "because of the lack of evidence, god cannot exist". I am saying that the likelihood of an imagined super-entity just so happens to exist, by sheer coincidence, can only be regarded as very, very slim. The flying spaghetti monster, for example, is an entirely made up entity, which everybody will agree. But it just might happen to exist by sheer coincidence. But again, it is entirely reasonable to say "there ain't no such thing" because we can trace its human origins. The same can be said of any attempt to anthropomorphosize the universe. No, we cannot disprove it completely, but then again there is nothing you can disprove completely. Yet no one objects when someone says "there is no Santa Claus".

[Monarchist]

Well, at least you're adaptable and don't immediately call theists "reactionary" and "irrelevant".