Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

You keep ducking providing your definition of " god". Just admit you don't believe in something you can't define.

 

Religious fog alert. Snapdragons never sinned and are not carnivores, but those flytrap plants must have been in bed with the devil.

 

So why does your god get to be exempt from the law of causality? Your own argument above requires it. So you are left with infinite regression, or special pleading.

 

Believing in naturalistic, no-God evolution is like thinking given enough time, a tornado could go though a junkyard and deposit a fully-functioning, ready for takeoff jet plane. And that still wouldn't explain where the stuff in the junkyard came from. It is the belief that nothing times nobody equals everything.

 

You don't need an explanation for an explanation. In other words, if we found a dirt mound containing tools and arrowheads, it would be reasonable to assume that men put them there, without knowing anything about them or where they came from.

 

Sagan was also wrong about the number of requirements for life. If I recall, he thought it was just a few, we now know there are dozens and dozens.

 

The universe being an illusion is not just a philosophical conjecture. Scientific analysis tends to strongly support the concept. At the subatomic quantum level and below, there is no solid matter. It's all energy patterns and mostly empty space (space in which virtual particles can pop in and out and transient wave energy can pass thru).

Objective physical reality is based on subjective machinations controlled and/or influenced by unknown factors, although it is also thought that reality is reconstructed every microsecond according to logical and usually consistent probabilities. A limited amount of subatomic particles (quarks) also pop in and out of existence.

Conscious awareness alters transitions in wave/particle duality where the behavior of light photons are instrumentally monitored. Unknown rules imposed by virtual reality scripts seem to be in the action behind the generation of physical reality.

Meaningfulness is a concern of humans at the level of established existence. Blueprints as such are arbitrary, subject to value judgments, and potentially ambiguous. Until more is known, assigning meaning to aspects within the functional domain of matter/reality generation is an exercise in conjecture.

 

Uh, of course you do.

What on earth does this have to do with exempting your god from the law of causality?

 

Are you actually one of those "Unique" individuals that confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution? If so, you have failed in this debate by default and should leave this to people of intellectual maturity.

 

Why do you think the universe might be an illusion?

 

"
Gelecski7238 said: ↑
The universe being an illusion is not just a philosophical conjecture. Scientific analysis tends to strongly support the concept. At the subatomic quantum level and below, there is no solid matter. It's all energy patterns and mostly empty space (space in which virtual particles can pop in and out and transient wave energy can pass thru).

Objective physical reality is based on subjective machinations controlled and/or influenced by unknown factors, although it is also thought that reality is reconstructed every microsecond according to logical and usually consistent probabilities. A limited amount of subatomic particles (quarks) also pop in and out of existence."

Why do you ask questions that were answered in the quote you posted?

By the way...the answer you provided to mine makes no sense and I do not need a sermon.

 

Everybody knows when you close your eyes it goes away!

 

@SamsEgo Please place me on ignore so I do not need to.

 

We have to decide what "universe" means. In science, one refers to everything that came from the big bang as our universe. Cosmologists don't start the big bang from nothing - they start it from a small object of stupendous density that then expanded at an incredible rate. That can be tested.

What came "before" or exists "around" our universe or exists in other dimensions, etc., has been beyond our ability to test to any great extent. But, there isn't any evidence that our universe is the only thing that exists.

A time or place of "nothingness" is pure conjecture. It certainly doesn't come from science.

Again, cosmologists don't see this universe as coming from nothing and they don't see it as eternal, either.

The fundamental "character" is energy. I don't see how your comments about "character" apply to that. And, I think this thread isn't big enough to really delve into what Carl Sagan believed.

More importantly, I do NOT believe that we should be seeing this as a contest between scientific advancement and the tools of science on one side "versus" God and the tools for answering questions of why we are here and the supernatural.

No matter WHAT we find, someone can ALWAYS say that what science discovers about how things work is merely an investigation of God's methods. Science has NO tools for arguing that there is no supernatural. And, religion has NO tools for figuring out how our physical universe works.

Fighting against science because one thinks that science is attacking god or doesn't make enough room for god is nonsensical.

What we should be doing is accepting that science is an investigation of how this physical universe (multiverse??) works.

On the other hand, religion has tools for working on "why".

We should be focusing more attention on which toolbox to use, because choosing the wrong toolbox (or mixing the tools) is always going to lead to nonsense.

 

There was NEVER a time when lions weren't carnivores. They don't have the physical equipment for being something else.

 

??

Of course this a sermon!

And, there are sermons from every other religion that has existed.

I'm not sure what your point is.

How is your post related to the thread topic?

 

I'm not ducking ANYTHING. I've been crystal clear.

What's totally silly is that in light of what I've said you want ME to be specific about a god!!!

Why would you ask someone who rejects the entire range of the supernatural for a specific definition of a god?

 

I was discussing how Jesus fullfills the Messianic prophecies. At what point is discussing different beliefs a sermon?

 

They could have used their teeth to eat watermelon if the Fall didn't happen.

 

I don't know, but when the topic is how your god is fulfilling Messianic prophecies I'm pretty sure we strayed pretty far from discussing questions about atheism - which isn't about any god at all.

 

Good one!

 

The Bible is the only book that mentions sinfuless of man and also seeking God. No other book describe the sinfulness of man to a T.
i believe in the bibical origin because We are seperated from where we come from, we try to fill that void with other stuff.
i believe religion is people trying to fill the void in our hearts with something that doesn't involve repentance. the void in our hearts is designed to be filled with a relationship with God.I believe people subconciously supress our inborn desire to seek God

 

Why would a rational person ever want to find that psycho biblical God character? He is a lunatic.

 

All matter and energy was condensed into the Singularity prior to the Big Bang. It was the Singularity that went BANG and spread matter and energy all over the universe. How many times this has happened in the past and could happen again in the future is unknown.

You are looking at evolution BACKWARDS!

A single cell grows to the point where it divides which is EXACTLY what happens following conception in ALL SPECIES therefore we ALL EVOLVED from the same origin of life which is cell division.

The formation of the first self replicating cells is still being studied and you were provided with scientific links to that knowledge.

The concept of cell division is the basis of evolution since each and every division introduces the potential for changes to occur which means that the child cells could be different to the parent cells in some way that might be optimized for survival in a changing environment.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, the IRONY!

Accusing someone else of using personal insults while you personally insult them exposes who the FRAUD actually is here because nothing that I posted was a personal insult.

Just because you didn't appreciate having your inane tautology content exposed as vapid does NOT mean that you were "personally insulted".

Furthermore your asinine OPINION is a FLAMEBAITING PF Rule Violation over and above your personal insult Rule Violations.

The content of your posts establishes that it is YOU that is incapable of engaging in civil discourse and thereby DISQUALIFIED yourself from any further interaction on this topic as far as I am concerned.

Have a nice day!