I'd beg to differ. How could the world just suddenly happen? That violates the scientific principle that something cannot come from nothing. Also, if the world were millions of years old, that would not jive with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; that the earth's core has been losing heat ever since existence. The earth would not be able to last millions of years. There are also many other scientific proofs for a creator. For example all of the intricasies of the human body, and that the earth is the perfect axis and distance from the son. How could this all have been random?
the world didn't just "suddenly happen," it's over 5 billion years old and the universe is 13 billion. How do we know this? Carbon dating and understanding that our universe is expanding-all based on verifiable scientific research.
Our universe did come from something, an energy field which predated it. Look up virtual particles and you'll understand how a universe/the big bang could happen.
What you theists have offered is little more than a hunch, an idea (god) which you then began to treat as something that has been already proven. Your evidence? None-it's blind, unquestioning belief and dogma. Throw in some magic and superstition for the stuff that doesn't make any sense.
Theists have no business delving into scientific debates since all you offer is your beliefs and nothing more.
Plus your god-hypothesis isn't really an answer. All it does is replace one mystery-the universe, with another mystery-god, that we obviously invented.
Did your god come from nothing? Who created him? a supergod? it leads to infinite regression.
No one knows how the universe came to exist since we were not there at the beginning. However science-based on evidence has given us the best answer so far.
Religion gave us a theory which has zero evidence to support it. Conjure up your god and then you'll have an argument-till then, it's no different than saying Santa Claus made the universe.
How could you not freak out when they wrote that?!?! I wanted to chime in to JustCHELlin246's ignorance, but you did it quite well.
But just so you know for future reference, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years old. Not that those extra few million years make it any more impressive.
Upon researching virtual particles, I do understand their significance in explaining models and the significance of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However, during my research I read an article by a seemingly legitimate scholar Mark I. Vuletic. Here is the link. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
In this article Mark attempts to prove that an atheist view of the world is possible. While reading the article in its entirety, his arguments started to unravel as he says, "If one does count facts as things, then nothingness is a logical impossibility: if nothing existed, then it would be a fact that nothing existed, meaning that at least one thing (the fact that nothing exists) exists, which would, in turn, contradict the original hypothesis. Consequently, if one counts facts as things, then some fact must obtain; but, if at least one fact must obtain, why should it not be the fact that quantum mechanics applies?" To prove virtual particles based on circular reasoning and "why shouldn't you believe this?" logic did not have me convinced. That is why I was reading this, I want to know why I should believe it.
His article boiled down to illogical conclusions that "nothingness" and "nothing" are different things and that the "nothing" of physics does not truly mean "nothing." How is anything supposed to make sense if we make a proof by bending the "true" meanings of things?
And you said it yourself, all that theists and atheists have are theories and hypotheses. However, I should hope that you would be willing to research my side of things, and then compare the different evidences. Look at the accuracy of the Bible, written from eye-witnesses, precise even hundreds of years after from the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This side of things may be a bit premature in our debate, so I would like to leave you with a final notion for this time.
As humans we want to discover and know everything. It is our nature to explore and conquer. It is hard to admit that we do not know everything about how we came to be and why we are here. But this is why we have faith in God. If we truly take our pride out of the picture, and trust that there are things only a divine creator could know and understand, then it becomes a lot easier to believe in God who will love you. Not scientific theories that cannot completely prove the unknown or love us at all.
Please do not take offense to anything I have said. Like I said before, we are in a respectful debate and would be much obliged with you if it stayed that way. Thank you.
Is it normal I am antitheist?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I'd beg to differ. How could the world just suddenly happen? That violates the scientific principle that something cannot come from nothing. Also, if the world were millions of years old, that would not jive with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; that the earth's core has been losing heat ever since existence. The earth would not be able to last millions of years. There are also many other scientific proofs for a creator. For example all of the intricasies of the human body, and that the earth is the perfect axis and distance from the son. How could this all have been random?
--
oleo
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
the world didn't just "suddenly happen," it's over 5 billion years old and the universe is 13 billion. How do we know this? Carbon dating and understanding that our universe is expanding-all based on verifiable scientific research.
Our universe did come from something, an energy field which predated it. Look up virtual particles and you'll understand how a universe/the big bang could happen.
What you theists have offered is little more than a hunch, an idea (god) which you then began to treat as something that has been already proven. Your evidence? None-it's blind, unquestioning belief and dogma. Throw in some magic and superstition for the stuff that doesn't make any sense.
Theists have no business delving into scientific debates since all you offer is your beliefs and nothing more.
Plus your god-hypothesis isn't really an answer. All it does is replace one mystery-the universe, with another mystery-god, that we obviously invented.
Did your god come from nothing? Who created him? a supergod? it leads to infinite regression.
No one knows how the universe came to exist since we were not there at the beginning. However science-based on evidence has given us the best answer so far.
Religion gave us a theory which has zero evidence to support it. Conjure up your god and then you'll have an argument-till then, it's no different than saying Santa Claus made the universe.
--
guacadoggie
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
JustCHELlin246
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How could you not freak out when they wrote that?!?! I wanted to chime in to JustCHELlin246's ignorance, but you did it quite well.
But just so you know for future reference, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years old. Not that those extra few million years make it any more impressive.
Upon researching virtual particles, I do understand their significance in explaining models and the significance of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However, during my research I read an article by a seemingly legitimate scholar Mark I. Vuletic. Here is the link. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
In this article Mark attempts to prove that an atheist view of the world is possible. While reading the article in its entirety, his arguments started to unravel as he says, "If one does count facts as things, then nothingness is a logical impossibility: if nothing existed, then it would be a fact that nothing existed, meaning that at least one thing (the fact that nothing exists) exists, which would, in turn, contradict the original hypothesis. Consequently, if one counts facts as things, then some fact must obtain; but, if at least one fact must obtain, why should it not be the fact that quantum mechanics applies?" To prove virtual particles based on circular reasoning and "why shouldn't you believe this?" logic did not have me convinced. That is why I was reading this, I want to know why I should believe it.
His article boiled down to illogical conclusions that "nothingness" and "nothing" are different things and that the "nothing" of physics does not truly mean "nothing." How is anything supposed to make sense if we make a proof by bending the "true" meanings of things?
And you said it yourself, all that theists and atheists have are theories and hypotheses. However, I should hope that you would be willing to research my side of things, and then compare the different evidences. Look at the accuracy of the Bible, written from eye-witnesses, precise even hundreds of years after from the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This side of things may be a bit premature in our debate, so I would like to leave you with a final notion for this time.
As humans we want to discover and know everything. It is our nature to explore and conquer. It is hard to admit that we do not know everything about how we came to be and why we are here. But this is why we have faith in God. If we truly take our pride out of the picture, and trust that there are things only a divine creator could know and understand, then it becomes a lot easier to believe in God who will love you. Not scientific theories that cannot completely prove the unknown or love us at all.
Please do not take offense to anything I have said. Like I said before, we are in a respectful debate and would be much obliged with you if it stayed that way. Thank you.