The Epicurus thread reminded me of a conversation that I once had in university with an extremist christian kid. 

It was after a physics class and a group of us had gone down to play pool in the student hall.  The kid asked me if I believed in god and I said not really and then he started ranting about the day's class.  The conversation went something like this:

Kid:  "The big bang theory is obviously wrong.  I don't know why we study it at all."
Me:  "Well, there's significant evidence to support the theory."
Kid:  "Can't be..."
Me:  "Why?"
Kid:  "Obviously because you can't create something from nothing."
Me:  "Well, by that logic, where did your god come from."

Kid:  "He's god."


Of course, it ended up with me explaining to him that that made zero sense using his own logic and asking why can't he simply accept that while there is evidence supporting the original origins of our particular universe, the overall understanding is beyond our current ability of understanding.  Its fine to make something up if you need the comfort to sleep at night but its no better than believing that glitter farting magic unicorns are real.


Is it just me or do most conversations with theists just end up being similarly idiotic?

The thing is that theists rely upon special pleading. They can concoct all the silly things they want, because of god.

Also, gaps of knowledge fits well into it due to the fact that just because we do not yet have an answer to all the questions does not mean one should be readily created from the imagination in the form of god.

I accept evolution/big bang so I disagree with that part of it. But I do agree that God does not need to come from anything because He is supernatural and is outside of the dimension of time. He had no beginning.

No it is just those crippled with literal mindedness that are prone to this sort of gaff. Of course many theists are guilty of taking for granted that it is possible to know fantastic things - just because it is what the institution they subscribe to believes. So many think it is an advantage of their mindset that they have answers to far out propositions whereas we have none.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I accept evolution/big bang so I disagree with that part of it. But I do agree that God does not need to come from anything because He is supernatural and is outside of the dimension of time. He had no beginning.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:35 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: No it is just those crippled with literal mindedness that are prone to this sort of gaff.  Of course many theists are guilty of taking for granted that it is possible to know fantastic things - just because it is what the institution they subscribe to believes.  So many think it is an advantage of their mindset that they have answers to far out propositions whereas we have none.

I just don't understand why people care so much, honestly. Every religion (or lack thereof) that is not Catholic involves different beliefs than the one I have. Does it upset me that these people believe in things that I don't think are true? Absolutely not. It's a notion that I cannot understand.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I accept evolution/big bang so I disagree with that part of it. But I do agree that God does not need to come from anything because He is supernatural and is outside of the dimension of time. He had no beginning.

How does an atemporal being square with the notion of causality - which requires a temporal framework? How is this not a case of special pleasing, and why should anyone take it seriously?

(February 3, 2016 at 7:43 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 7:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I accept evolution/big bang so I disagree with that part of it. But I do agree that God does not need to come from anything because He is supernatural and is outside of the dimension of time. He had no beginning.

How does an atemporal being square with the notion of causality - which requires a temporal framework?  How is this not a case of special pleasing, and why should anyone take it seriously?

Actually not all causal relationships are temporal ones.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 7:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I accept evolution/big bang so I disagree with that part of it. But I do agree that God does not need to come from anything because He is supernatural and is outside of the dimension of time. He had no beginning.

You consistently avoid the distinction between particular beings and being-in-itself. Only by preserving this category error can people make accusations of special pleading.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:43 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 7:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I accept evolution/big bang so I disagree with that part of it. But I do agree that God does not need to come from anything because He is supernatural and is outside of the dimension of time. He had no beginning.

How does an atemporal being square with the notion of causality - which requires a temporal framework?  How is this not a case of special pleasing, and why should anyone take it seriously?

I didn't say anyone had to take it seriously. It is what I personally believe, but f you don't believe it, that is 100% fine by me. 

As for your first question.... don't use such big words! Lol. I don't even know what you're asking.