Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Catholic_Lady]

Hey, thank you for this post! :-)

---

That is your opinion. Whether it is more logical or not, it is, nonetheless, something that cannot be explained and has not been scientifically proven. In my opinion, it is not more logical.

That is where we dramatically disagree.  

Apologies if I come across as stand-offish, I'm more used to dealing with creationists and arrogant oafs. You at least seem like a fundamentally decent human being, which helps.
What of the second part of my post, however? Have you looked into the theories that have been formulated?
Bear in mind science is still very much in its infancy, yet it's unlocking the secrets of the universe at a quite astonishing rate.

Haha, thanks for the compliment and apology accepted of course. Are creationists automatically not "fundamentally decent humans?"

I have read/learned about the big bang in (catholic :-p ) school. As for the origin of the very first "thing" to ever have existed, no, I have never heard anything on that other than it either came from nothing or it always has been.

[Longhorn]

That's the point though. We're talking about a 'time' before 'time' existed.

We don't know =/= god

[Iroscato]

That is where we dramatically disagree.  

Apologies if I come across as stand-offish, I'm more used to dealing with creationists and arrogant oafs. You at least seem like a fundamentally decent human being, which helps.
What of the second part of my post, however? Have you looked into the theories that have been formulated?
Bear in mind science is still very much in its infancy, yet it's unlocking the secrets of the universe at a quite astonishing rate.

Haha, thanks for the compliment and apology accepted of course. Are creationists automatically not "fundamentally decent humans?"

I would never tar a group with the same brush in that way - in fact it's one of my core principles not to. Do I always walk that line 100%? No, because I'm as human as the rest of us. It's just the ones I've met and argued with have tested my patience beyond belief.

I have read/learned about the big bang in (catholic :-p ) school. As for the origin of the very first "thing" to ever have existed, no, I have never heard anything on that other than it either came from nothing or it always has been.

I was leaning more towards multiverse theory....it could be interesting for you to read up on.

[Catholic_Lady]

That's the point though. We're talking about a 'time' before 'time' existed.

We don't know =/= god

Of course not.

But we don't know, still means we don't know.

Meaning someone who doesn't know and has no evidence or proof of how anything happened, shouldn't call me out on my own theory.

We can all be equals here in the sense that we have no proof and choose to believe the path that makes most sense to us. In that, we are all the same. And that's fine.

---

Haha, thanks for the compliment and apology accepted of course. Are creationists automatically not "fundamentally decent humans?"

I would never tar a group with the same brush in that way - in fact it's one of my core principles not to. Do I always walk that line 100%? No, because I'm as human as the rest of us. It's just the ones I've met and argued with have tested my patience beyond belief.

Good. :-)

I have read/learned about the big bang in (catholic :-p ) school. As for the origin of the very first "thing" to ever have existed, no, I have never heard anything on that other than it either came from nothing or it always has been.

I was leaning more towards multiverse theory....it could be interesting for you to read up on.

[/quote]

I will google it right now, thank you.

[Longhorn]

That's the point though. We're talking about a 'time' before 'time' existed.

We don't know =/= god

Of course not.

But we don't know, still means we don't know.

Meaning someone who doesn't know and has no evidence or proof of how anything happened, shouldn't call me out on my own theory.

We can all be equals here in the sense that we have no proof and choose to believe the path that makes most sense to us. In that, we are all the same. And that's fine.

It's a weak theory. And it's not exactly yours, only in the sense that you believe in it.

You're jumping to the most improbable explanation that doesn't explain anything....
Except you're not. You already believed that. That's the thing with believers: everything is presupposed.

I'll put it this way: you were already taught the conclusion without going along any line of reasoning. That's what religion does. It doesn't examine the evidence. It trots out a conclusion and then tries to fit evidence to support it.

Kalam is just wrong upon wrong upon more fucking wrong.

I don't know. And I accept that I don't know. We can fantasize all day, but we don't know. But you believe. That's the difference.

[robvalue]

Two explanations for something unknown are only equal in that each is an explanation. It doesn't mean they are both equally valid or reasonable. I can give plenty of examples of this.

"We don't know". That is the answer, the only honest answer. Anything else is speculation, and some speculation is more reasonable than others.

[Cyberman]

There is a fundamental difference, though. "I don’t know and neither do you; let's investigate" will always trump "I know and neither do you; therefore God" every time.

[Longhorn]

'We don't know' doesn't give you a free pass to accept the most improbable theory. And improbability is not a question of personal judgement.

[Catholic_Lady]

Of course not.

But we don't know, still means we don't know.

Meaning someone who doesn't know and has no evidence or proof of how anything happened, shouldn't call me out on my own theory.

We can all be equals here in the sense that we have no proof and choose to believe the path that makes most sense to us. In that, we are all the same. And that's fine.

It's a weak theory. And it's not exactly yours, only in the sense that you believe in it.

You're jumping to the most improbable explanation that doesn't explain anything....
Except you're not. You already believed that. That's the thing with believers: everything is presupposed.

I'll put it this way: you were already taught the conclusion without going along any line of reasoning. That's what religion does. It doesn't examine the evidence. It trots out a conclusion and then tries to fit evidence to support it.

Kalam is just wrong upon wrong upon more fucking wrong.

I don't know. And I accept that I don't know. We can fantasize all day, but we don't know. But you believe. That's the difference.

Well, the notion that it's a weak theory is still your opinion. I respect your opinion, but of course, I disagree. I think your theory is a weak theory.

But that's fine.

That's why each of us believes what we do, and at the end of the day it is still something that science and our natural laws have not been able to explain or find proof of, so we are left to each respect the other's theories.

---

Two explanations for something unknown are only equal in that each is an explanation. It doesn't mean they are both equally valid or reasonable. I can give plenty of examples of this.

"We don't know". That is the answer, the only honest answer. Anything else is speculation, and some speculation is more reasonable than others.

Exactly. And since we have no proof, whatever explanation "is more valid" lies solely on individual opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

The weak theory of "I don't know"......? Validity does not hinge upon opinion. You're clearly having trouble...with words.