if not God then who/what?

So you're not angry. I guess you're always predisposed to referring to Believers as idiots then.

God may be a figment to you. Now convince me that we were created by something/someone else. Those who have no other options to offer would be well served to consider who the idiot may be.

- - - Updated - - -

God was always there.

If you know 'the truth' then tell us.

- - - Updated - - -

Until you or others can prove otherwise, the idiot mantle is yours/theirs.

 

I have displayed no ignorance. I have offered proof that we did not simply appear from nothing. Therefore we were created. Now outside of a god or God, who/what created us?

Your analogy is lame. Te God/evolution argument has been going on forever. Not so much so for the missing plane. So debunk my claim.

 

On the contrary, I'm not the one insisting that there must be a magic creature out there that made us.

ps Your unfounded belief that something is so, isn't "proof" of anything, other than your vivid imagination.

 

So who/what created us then?

 

Why do you think we were "created"?

 

You are ignorant of what, other than your god, might have created the universe or us. (If the universe and humans were even created.) You've admitted to as much. We all are ignorant in this regard. You use that ignorance to say that your god must have done it. This is literally a textbook case of an argument from ignorance. No doubt this exact fallacious argument appears in a critical thinking textbook somewhere.

 

Then tell me where I have shown ignorance. Science proves that you cannot create something from nothing. Obviously you think it can. Prove it then and fix my 'ignorance'.

- - - Updated - - -

Because there is no way that a planet or a universe can simply appear from nothing. I posted the science on this.

 

Whatever existed then (if "then" even has any meaning in this context) is certainly impossible to know in terms of todays science, thats for sure. But we don't know if there was any "nothingness" even then.

 

if the foundation of your argument is that something can't come from nothing, you discount your god instantly. you must either a) rewrite your god as created thing - which would necessitate a creator of creators, or b) accept that something CAN come from nothing - which means creators are not necessary.

if you can't, or won't see this glaring flaw in your premise, I don't think anyone here is going to switch lights on for you.

 

I didn't say that I disagree with the idea that something can't come from nothing. I don't accept your positive assertion that your god is what created our universe and us, though. You are making that assertion based on ignorance, which you have admitted to. You don't know of anything else that could have created our universe and us (that is ignorance: not knowing), therefore you believe your god did it. You are making an argument (god created the universe) from ignorance (nothing else is known to have created the universe). I can't "fix your 'ignorance'" because we are all ignorant in this regard. No one knows what, if anything, created the universe. Most of us in this thread are simply honest enough to admit and accept it.

 

There are only three that you know of, but this does not preclude the possibility that there are other possible explanations. Scientific laws have a long history of being proven wrong. Such as light needs a medium through which to propagate. Long ago this was such an entrenched idea in the scientific community that they created the concept of the "aether" to explain light propagation. The problem is that there was no such thing as a "aether" as they just created it to fit the accepted model rather than look for other possible explanations... like their entire "light needs a medium through which to propagate" could be wrong. In fact it was wrong and it is now known that light needs no medium to propagate and this is the reason that light can travel through the vacuum of space.

There is no need to refute the science as the science is not in question. Its your correlation of science with a theological intangible that is in dispute. Correlation does not imply causation... and the absence of a competing theory does not make your views correct.

 

No, unlike some believers I can state an opinion without their only two emotions, hate and/or anger.


You say, """Now convince me that we were created by something/someone else. Those who have no other options to offer would be well served to consider who the idiot may be."""


There is no idiocy in saying, "I don't know".

The only idiocy is having no proof and saying, "I know".

 

Why wasn't the universe always there?

I am not a theist, I don't make arrogant claims on foundations of ignorance.

 

How do you know this?

 

I posted proof. Read it.

- - - Updated - - -

I posted proof why the universe was not always there.

Obviously you are too ignorant to accept scientific proof.

 

Your opinion is angry. That's fine.

You don't know how it was created but you know how it wasn't. Got it.

Then the idiot would be the one saying he knows how it was not created.

 

If you have other explanations that offer proof, post them.

And? Why cannot there be a correlation between God and science? Isn't that what scientists did with their debunked abiogenesis theory?

 

No need to dance around. Show me where anything I have offered is based in ignorance. I made a binary choice as there are only two games in town unless you can prove otherwise. You cannot claim that God could not have created the universe without offering who/what did. And I do not follow the mob meaning that 'most in this thread' is irrelevant no matter what they believe. So if you and most of you in this thread are going to be so adamant in saying God did not create the universe, then be just as adamant in saying who did. Otherwise, the ignorance is yours and theirs IMO. Here's an option. Ignore my posts on the subject if the best you can do is call me ignorant. I can do the same if you like.

 

No you didn't.

But lets say you did, you haven't got one inch closer to proving the existence of God let alone your God.

 

I never said there cannot be a correlation... I said "correlation does not imply causation". You make a correlation between God and the Laws of Thermodynamics, then imply this is proof that God created the universe... I and others are saying that you have failed to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

In a discipline that would compel my mind to accept either your argument or both as being true and real.

 

His argument does not need you to use some disciple to accept it as it simply exists and can be proven to exist.

Unfortunately no such proof exists in the case of proving a GOD exists.

AboveAlpha

 

I can't see how this is any different from the last thread you made with the same theme. I gave an answer here which solves the issue of energy in the universe without breaking the first law of thermodynamics by including gravitational energy, which is negative, in the calculations. As pointed out in the discussion afterwards, it does not suggest a particular process by which the universe was created, but it does mean that the argument you made then, which is the same as you're making now, is invalid.

 

Your entire schtick is based on ignorance. "We don't know, therefore God" is proof of nothing but your gullibility.

 

I don't claim that god couldn't have created the universe. I claim that I don't know. Which is true. In fact, I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread has either claimed that they simply don't know what created the universe, if it was actually created, or have offered their own explanations. And I'm not calling you ignorant in general. I'm saying your argument is based in ignorance. You have admitted to this, you just don't like having it pointed out to you, apparently. You are ignorant of what created the universe. As are we all. Like I said before, most of us in this thread are just honest enough to admit and accept our ignorance. That kind of honesty appears to be so abhorrent to you that you're willing to hide your ignorance with certainty of an illogical position.