Creationism

[theVOID]

by makes sense I mean it is possible and not improble. Now before you go and challanage that. It is not a improble answer that universe started in Chaos and gave birth to the Creators of Man.

1) If by "makes sense" you mean "possible and not improbable(likely)" then just say so - Calling it Making Sense is going to get you nowhere if that isn't what you actually mean.

2) Since man is less complex than Gods it is more probable that chaos created man and then man invented Gods.

Based on another religions storys it is pretty probable.ex: The six day theory. The Big Bang theory(we will confront that later). Even the Sun and the Moon having kids to create the universe

Just because one religious story of creation is dumber than your own one does not make your one more likely to be true.

. This probabilty is based on possiblity of existance and logical sense, as I meant to say(this about the Quantum Mechanics arguement) things that are commonsense.

Then specifically make your arguments from a likelihood of them being true.

You mean to tell me that it is possible that Ocean is enity and that its demigods(water towers) move around at night and a whole bunch exploded with the ocean in it and that is why Iron is 4th most common element on earth, is logical explanation for the universe, according to Peter Shinner(Godless) it is. As we know that is crazy explanation for universe and is definitly not possible,

Of course it's not possible, it's complete stupidity.

why? Not because of Science. We can't prove that wrong, but we can use common sense.

This is well within the abilities of science to disprove.

Oceans are large bodies of water containing various molecules and chemicals. Such things are not intelligent.

'Water Towers' do not have the energy required to create iron. This requires nuclear fusion.

BTW Perputal motion maybe possible according to some scientists. Because(they give a example in the laws of thermodynamics[the one that says that particles can pop in and out existance inside a atom]) that not all the laws are perfect.

lol at your use of thermodynamics, especially since i am about to use thermodynamics to disprove perpetual motion.

The first law of thermodynamics states (simply put) that energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Perpetual motion requires the creation of energy.
Perpetual motion is false.

Particles 'popping into existence' are called virtual particles, they are each the antithesis of each other, one negative one positive. The net energy is zero. Therefore no energy was created.

Your reasoning is flawed. Polythiesm in general is not due to assumptions about each gods personlity, we don't assume to know very many things about the Gods nor do we pretend too(Monothiesm). We simply claim that are Gods are the creators of the the World as we know it and that they have jobs, but this no more cocky than any other religion or asserting that there is no higher creator.

1) Atheism isn't a religion, it's the rejection of God claims.

2) Nobody asserts that there "is no creator", we only say that the reasons provided for the existence of such a being are complete bullshit.

Polythiesm makes more sense than Monotheism because of the innocence problems. The Gods never claimed that theyed help us, so why should we say that it is the Gods working in mysterious ways(monothiesm).

Who gives a shit? You need to provide reasons for your polytheism, not just reasons why polytheism is less dumb than monotheism.

In fact there are many examples that the Gods like to get in the way(see pandoras box), but take favour amoung some mortals more than others. The lack of a devil also helps Polythiesm. Polythiesm doesn't claim that there is supreme being that is so strong, yet he lets there be sin, and let it run rampent. Also the Gods could have differing intrests and that would cause the world to get alitte iffy. Also the existance of God that is all loving and all forgiving and lets his people rot in hell(Monothiesm) is contary to reality.

Again, who gives a shit? This isn't an argument for polytheism.

The big bang, is according to theory, the event that lead to the formation of universe.

No, it isn't. It's the beginning of spacetime.

See the first law of thermodynamics again, energy is neither created or destroyed, it only changes form. The emergence of spacetime was a change in form. The net energy is identical to when it started therefore the universe never "began".

Now there are many more problems then the cause and effect law, also the problem that information can't travel faster then the speed of light. Also known as the Horizon problem.

The horizon problem was solved by inflation.

Not to mention the Dark matter and energy problem

Problems for what? They aren't problems:

1) Dark matter is heavy matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and therefore is not visible.

2) Dark energy is the constant Lambda - What is the problem you think this presents for big bang cosmology?

and the flatness problem.

The flatness of the universe isn't a problem

And don't tell me about the Inflation theory,

"Don't tell me about the theory that solves the problem" in other words.

You should look at the non-uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation - This was predicted by the inflationary model of the big bang and was verified as an extremely accurate prediction (to the 7th decimal place by WISE), a prediction that wasn't accounted for by any other big bang model.

What are the chances of inflationary model correctly making such a prediction with such a high degree of accuracy if it were not true? Extremely improbable. Conclusion? The inflationary model of the big bag is most likely true.

it has too many contridictions.

What contradictions? I guarantee any you present are misunderstandings, as the inflationary model is internally consistent.

BTW Space and time are 2 differnant varibles.

lol, if you want to be specific they are 4 variables in the standard model (x, y, z, t) and 11 in M-Theory.

Though just considering you thought it was clever to bring this up shows you don't have a clue what spacetime actually referrers to, which is the impression i get from all your arguments in physics.

That is little bit childish. FSM is a 5 year old religion.

A 5 year old parody religion. And that doesn't matter, I just wanted to show that arguing against it from antiquity is a fallacy.

Geocentrism is not true, we know that but think about this ok so there are only 2 problems with comparing Geocentrismtrism with religion.

You really don't get it do you? I was showing why your argument from antiquity was a fallacy, because antiquity supports Geocentrism and if antiquity is in any way indicative of the truth of a proposition (which is what you tried to use it for) then we must see antiquity as an argument for Geocentrism. Since Geocentrism is false antiquity is not indicative of the truth an is thus not a good argument against the existence of the FSM.

One that if something is made up and completly no reason behind it, when is more likely to be made closer to the beginning of man, or toward the middle?

And you use an argument from Antiquity AGAIN!

1) Where in the course of the existence of man the idea was conceived of does not contribute towards the truth of the proposition.

2) If this was true then you shouldn't be using any physics as an argument, because physics is less antique than blaming it on angels and demons.

You not only don't seem to get why antiquity is a useless argument, you are completely inconsistent in your application of it!

Also another thing religion is not a scientific theory. So at comparing those things:

*Yawn* The comparison was to demonstrate a flaw in your reasoning, something that applies to both apriori and aposteriori arguments. The fact that one example was science and one was religion is completely irrelevant - I could have used any case in history and philosophy and demonstrated the exact same point.

And after all of this you STILL haven't provided an argument for the existence of your polytheism.

Again:

1) I do not give a shit if your polytheism is less dumb than monotheism because it says nothing about whether your polytheism is true.

2) Any argument that is fallacious (such as your arguments from antiquity) cannot be used to conclude upon the truth of the proposition in question.