Do to really believe a snake talked?!

[pocaracas]

Another speculation could be:
- Eternal multiple singularities, when two collide (whatever that means), a big bang is generated.

I don't believe you can have two singularites in the same space by definition.

- The singularity was always there, brooding, or something beyond our physics (as yet) until it poped.
- singularities are generated from other processes beyond our physics.

These are appeals to the supernatural, which atheists typically frown on.

SINGULARITY:


To put it simply, a singularity is a single point (dimensionless, no width, height, length nor time span) in space where the known laws of physics break down and aren't applicable.
At the moment, any speculation can be put into a singularity, even god, and all we can say about it is: we don't know... maybe that speculative hypothesis is right, maybe not.

Out of the astonishing number of different possible hypotheses, god is but one. The odds of finding god in there are then miniscule.
This is not something I believe in, it's just what it is.
Because of this miniscule probability, the natural assumption is that god should not be the answer.
Let's work into finding it and getting some certainties. Until then, we hold our money and refrain from betting on any horse.

This is the atheistic perspective.

The theistic perspective is: I bet on this horse because I believe he'll win in the end.

All horses are equally unlikely to win, but you just put all your money on that one.
Does this behavior make sense? not to me...

[SpecUVdust]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY Carl Sagan. May your atoms from your body find their way through the cosmos!

[Godscreated]

I can't wait to see that thing get up and run, it should be spectacular.

How about swimming:

Pachyrhachis problematicus is a snake with well-developed hind limbs known from two specimens from the Cenomanian of the Middle East. [. . .] Confirmed morphology best supports the phylogenetic hypothesis that Pachyrhachis is a basal macrostomatan snake. Limb retention in a basal macrostomatan snake implies that loss of hind limbs occurred multiple times within Serpentes.

Not enough? Well, how about:

Haasiophis terrasanctus

Eupodophis descouensi

Najash rionegrina

It's interesting, isn't it, that your favourite story hinges on a serpent with legs that becomes cursed with crawling on its belly, yet when shown known evolutionary evidence of exactly that, suddenly it becomes a problem for you. One might almost conclude that your belief isn't quite as strong as you seem to want to think.

I truly would like to see these snakes get up and run on their hind legs... oh that's right they are no longer with us so that's impossible, how unfortunate. Know what else is impossible, to know how these snakes live and if their appendages were useful or not. All that is nothing more than speculation and whether you want to admit it or not is your problem. I have enough sense to know these people who described these snakes never saw them and can at best speculate. Yeah, you need to bring some real proof to the table. My belief grows daily and being on this site helps to confirm I'm correct in what I know.
I do not know of a snake that doesn't swim, if there is one it was probably the ones you mentioned, the Great Flood thing you know.

---

God has always been and is the cause of all that has ever existed.

You say god has always been as if it is a fact. It isn't a fact, it's a bullshit belief. And it's a bullshit belief because you can't even offer up any evidence for god even being real, let alone "always been".

Come back with credible evidence that god is something more than a made up gap filler, and THEN you can start talking about how he's "always been".

If god could always have been, then so could the universe. Which of course would mean no need for god.

God is not a physical being, matter has to have a cause and God caused it. You guys like to say egotistical man made up gods, why, their and our egos would not allow for this. Man, outside of the knowing of God has no real reason to have gods, most of mankind has always set himself highest on the pedestal.

[Kousbroek]

...matter has to have a cause and God caused it.....

LHC ... Higgsboson ... Particle physics ... where does your god come into the equation ?

[Kirbmarc]

God is not a physical being, matter has to have a cause and God caused it.

Read a few philosophy books other than the Bible.

[John V]

"I know he's not married because he's a bachelor" doesn't explain why he's not married or why he's a bachelor (and if I actually claimed that it did explain that, by the way, that wouldn't be the circular reasoning fallacy that would be the question begging fallacy), but it does mean that if he's a bachelor he's not married because they're the same thing.

All I'm saying is that to say that existence ever didn't exist is logically nonsensical. It's true by definition that existence is never non-existent. Just as it's true by definition that bachelors are never married.

Enough said.

---

SINGULARITY:

It's interesting that when atheists are having a hard time with an argument they tend to post funny pictures.

To put it simply, a singularity is a single point (dimensionless, no width, height, length nor time span) in space where the known laws of physics break down and aren't applicable.
At the moment, any speculation can be put into a singularity, even god, and all we can say about it is: we don't know... maybe that speculative hypothesis is right, maybe not.

Out of the astonishing number of different possible hypotheses, god is but one. The odds of finding god in there are then miniscule.

I haven't seen an astonishing number of hypotheses. I've only seen a few, and others I can consider can be put into a few categories for discussion.

This is not something I believe in, it's just what it is.

So far it's just something you believe in. You certainly haven't astonished me with alternative hypotheses. You put forth a handful, if that. One was incorrect by definition of singularity. One - the "brooding" singularity - was somewhat godlike.

Note also that I'm not dismissing the possibility of a natural explanation. A cyclic universe could allow for an eternal universe and account for the apparent beginning that we currently see. But so far, no cyclic models have worked. Considering this, I'm a little confused by the continuing arguments.

All horses are equally unlikely to win, but you just put all your money on that one.
Does this behavior make sense? not to me...

To me it does. Go figure.

[SpecUVdust]

[quote='SpecUVdust' pid='360348' dateline='1352422296']
Alright godchild, you wanna say you don't believe in a talking snake? I say BS. But fine, how about this- Do you believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old? I mean, since your "smart" enough "not" to believe in a talkin snake... Who was in a perfect Eden among one man and one woman who were "perfect."

I stated there was no talking snake in the Garden, where do you get there was a talking snake in the Garden. There however was a sly serpent in the Garden and he talked, this serpent had legs disqualifying it as a snake. That's till God took them away and then sent him away crawling on his belly and eating dirt.

I believe it's possible the earth is 50,000 years old, however no older.



Where do you get 50,000? Your bible would have the earth at less than ten thousand. Did you just decide that it's no more than 50,000! Lol
So... You don't believe in dinosaurs? But you DO believe I god? So 50,000 years ago god made earth then "hid" dino bones that he made with a wave of his wand??? You cannot possibly feel as though you are an intellectual.

[Cyberman]

I truly would like to see these snakes get up and run on their hind legs... oh that's right they are no longer with us so that's impossible, how unfortunate. Know what else is impossible, to know how these snakes live and if their appendages were useful or not. All that is nothing more than speculation and whether you want to admit it or not is your problem.

Whoa there cully, you asked for evidence of how legged snakes got around and I provided it. Dismissing it can be valid if the evidence is poorly attested and researched etc, otherwise doing so puts you in the tin foil hat brigade.

I have enough sense to know these people who described these snakes never saw them and can at best speculate.

And there we go. Yes, you're absolutely right, it's all a conspiracy designed to test your faith in a story about a magic wizard who makes snakes with legs. Oh, hang on...

Yeah, you need to bring some real proof to the table. My belief grows daily and being on this site helps to confirm I'm correct in what I know.

Wait a minute; so I need to spoonfeed you with "real proof" but all you need is to believe without doing any of the work? What's the term for this, now?

I do not know of a snake that doesn't swim, if there is one it was probably the ones you mentioned, the Great Flood thing you know.

This is gibberish. You don't know of one that doesn't swim, yet one that does might have been the ones I "brought to the table" that swam during your made-up flood? Mangled syntax aside, are you now accepting the evidence you just got done ridiculing or not?

[Edwardo Piet]

Enough said.

Well, you may agree with my argument then but you still haven't answered my concluding question to my argument: Since existence has always existed then, why would we require God for the universe?

[The Grand Nudger]

GC, how much effort are you seriously looking to expend arguing that a god successfully cursed a dragon?

You -do- put yourself on that pedestal, your ego not only allows for a god but actively encourages it. God hates what you hate, he loves what you love. God agrees with you in every particular. If your hand isn't wedged firmly up this gods ass making it's mouth move then please, show me some disparity between "you"..and "god".