If either I or atheists had better evidence we'd have put this question to bed along time ago. Even though some people promote the notion the Holocaust never occured or the US didn't land on the moon, no one seriously debates those issues because of the overwhelming evidence in favor of those events having occurred.

Quote:The fact of the matter is that, debated or not, there are still people who believe these nonsensical things. Why are you putting an upper limit on the number of people who need to believe in a proposition for it to become justified? That's just an argumentum ad populum.

The point which appears to have gone over your head (not that it needed to go very high) is that no one seriously debates those issues because of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence in favor of the event occuring. It has nothing to do with the numbers.

There have been a multitude of beliefs previously held that have been discarded because of a preponderance of evidence against such notions. If there was as much evidence against belief in God as other abandoned beliefs the majority of theists would abandon belief in God also.

Quote:Yup, there it is: "Many people still believe this, therefore it must have something to it."

No, unlike the multitude of beliefs that have been discarded due to a preponderance of evidence against such beliefs, no such preponderance of evidence against the existence of a Creator isn't forthcoming. The person who started this post wrote..

Quote:This isn't for me, I know This isn't for me, I know without a doubt god has never existed,

I responded...

Hmmm why is it a theorhetical situation if you 'know' without a doubt god has never existed? Why not just inform us of the information and facts you have that lead you to conclude without a doubt God doesn't exist and be done with it?

Not surprisingly he hasn't responded because his knowing God never existed isn't based on facts and data.

(May 8, 2013 at 11:18 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: No, unlike the multitude of beliefs that have been discarded due to a preponderance of evidence against such beliefs, no such preponderance of evidence against the existence of a Creator isn't forthcoming. The person who started this post wrote..

As everything we know follows from the big bang there is no need for evidence after that event. What preponderance do you imagine exists?

(May 8, 2013 at 11:18 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: There have been a multitude of beliefs previously held that have been discarded because of a preponderance of evidence against such notions. If there was as much evidence against belief in God as other abandoned beliefs the majority of theists would abandon belief in God also.

If there was real evidence, even supernaturally, for the existence of the Christian God (or any other god you like), the majority of theists would believe in him. This is not, and has never been, the case.

(May 8, 2013 at 6:36 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: As everything we know follows from the big bang there is no need for evidence after that event. What preponderance do you imagine exists?

Trivial thinking ... Absolute stupidity.... Not even aware of your ignorance !

Of course not everything we know follows from the big bang. The set of laws of physics did not emerge from the big bang, because they are what caused it.
This issue, the origin of physics laws, is common between physicists and unless your brain is composed of shit instead of neurons you will not say what you said !
Try to read, Try to think, Try to understand !

(May 8, 2013 at 8:36 pm)Simsim Wrote:

(May 8, 2013 at 6:36 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: As everything we know follows from the big bang there is no need for evidence after that event. What preponderance do you imagine exists?

Trivial thinking ... Absolute stupidity.... Not even aware of your ignorance !

Of course not everything we know follows from the big bang. The set of laws of physics did not emerge from the big bang, because they are what caused it.
This issue, the origin of physics laws, is common between physicists and unless your brain is composed of shit instead of neurons you will not say what you said !
Try to read, Try to think, Try to understand !

At first I read that again looking for the joke. Then I realized you were not joking.

Where did you learn what it was like before this universe existed? How can physical law exist independent of matter, energy or anything else to operate upon? Where did you learn the cause of the bang?

I would really like you to explain how laws can exist as abstract principles independent of what they act upon in addition to your source of knowledge of the above.

As with Spock, I am all ears.

(May 8, 2013 at 8:59 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: At first I read that again looking for the joke. Then I realized you were not joking.

Where did you learn what it was like before this universe existed? How can physical law exist independent of matter, energy or anything else to operate upon? Where did you learn the cause of the bang?

I would really like you to explain how laws can exist as abstract principles independent of what they act upon in addition to your source of knowledge of the above.

As with Spock, I am all ears.

I am not joking, but just your atheism is very superficial. I guessed that from your reply to my first post, then I became sure after reading this second reply.
Two years ago I wrote a philosophical- scientific study about the beginning of the universe and the origin of the physics laws from the perspective of science and metaphysical philosophy. The study was written in Arabic, but one day I may modify it and translate it into English in this forum in an independent topic. (I hope that)
So, till I will do that train yourself to think deeply to some extent and not to haste to reply ignorantly to what you don't understand.

Regards

(May 8, 2013 at 9:33 pm)Simsim Wrote:

(May 8, 2013 at 8:59 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: At first I read that again looking for the joke. Then I realized you were not joking.

Where did you learn what it was like before this universe existed? How can physical law exist independent of matter, energy or anything else to operate upon? Where did you learn the cause of the bang?

I would really like you to explain how laws can exist as abstract principles independent of what they act upon in addition to your source of knowledge of the above.

As with Spock, I am all ears.

I am not joking, but just your atheism is very superficial. I guessed that from your reply to my first post, then I became sure after reading this second reply.
Two years ago I wrote a philosophical- scientific study about the beginning of the universe and the origin of the physics laws from the perspective of science and metaphysical philosophy. The study was written in Arabic, but one day I may modify it and translate it into English in this forum in an independent topic. (I hope that)
So, till I will do that train yourself to think deeply to some extent and not to haste to reply ignorantly to what you don't understand.

Regards

I read the words "written in Arabic" then the statement fail. Most Middle Eastern schools are not recognized by Western Education institutions. Please republish this ground breaking paper! Win the prize and donate it.

Unfortunately it is not groundbreaking, but, in spite of that, if I win the prize.......... I will not donate it

"Philosophical-scientific" is where I stopped taking that post seriously. Lol

(May 9, 2013 at 3:00 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote: "Philosophical-scientific" is where I stopped taking that post seriously. Lol

Hi Nora ... your name (Nora) is common in Egypt, it has the meaning of "light" or a girl who is luminous. This is no (1)

no (2): Why LOL? what is the strange about the term you LOLled at?

no (3): You should not take anything seriously, whether a post or otherwise.... It is all a big fairy tale.

no (4): You are beautiful ^_^

no (5): You are beautiful.