Proof that God doesn't exist

[Whateverist]

Have any theists called you on this assumption that their God is all powerful? Perhaps, far from being a skill event, creating worlds is like a bad case of gas for a God. Yes, that's right, perhaps creating the world/universe is just a natural body function for a god. They don't choose what it looks like. It just comes out that way.

Come on theists! Don't make me do all the work for you. Don't let us get away with unwarranted assumptions about your skyboy's intentions. That may just all be one big, steaming pile of shit.

Not that I can recall. If they did have something to say about his omnipotence and how if you do this mental backflip then that is justified, then I'm probably just gonna give up. I think with every post I'm getting more apathetic towards the "GOD" concept. We may as well be debating how much the Hulk can lift.

[Undeceived]

I see. Do you have a line of reasoning why God would choose the Big Bang?

I'm a little rusty on this topic, but I believe if you add up all the energy in the universe that he willed, it adds up to zero. That implies that the universe is flat (as opposed to some other abstract shape) which means everything expanded from a singularity i.e. the Big Bang.

The way i understand it, negative energy is the conclusion an argument using the Big Bang as one of its premises. NASA: "It is unknown in physics whether negative mass or negative energy densities can exist." http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/techno...paper.html
Basically, it is a theory on the level of wormholes. If you could prove that negative energy actually exists (as opposed to a mere lack of energy), you'd be proving the potential for time travel. Not to say that's not possible, but do you have any evidence for it?

[Reasonable_Jeff]

Hey guys,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding things but it seems FallentoReason is saying that if evolution is true then the genesis 1 account of creation can't be true...then extrapolating that to mean that Christianity is false and God doesn't exist.

Not all Christians believe in special creation, so I don't believe the argument stands.

At most his argument would only show that the Bible isn't inerrant.

[FallentoReason]

Hey guys,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding things but it seems FallentoReason is saying that if evolution is true then the genesis 1 account of creation can't be true...then extrapolating that to mean that Christianity is false and God doesn't exist.

Not all Christians believe in special creation, so I don't believe the argument stands.

At most his argument would only show that the Bible isn't inerrant.

I was at a friend's house about 3 weeks ago to watch Prometheus, coincidentally. We've both watched like 3 times already so we were watching it with commentaries. Then something about halfway through sparked a semi-deep conversation that an hr later turned into the deepest questions about life and faith. Anyways, his dad came into the room to do something for a brief second and heard what we were talking about. He's got a masters degree in ancient Greek and theology, so I thought it would be ideal to hear his response to this very topic that we're discussing on this thread.

He began by saying that 3 months ago it clicked to him that evolution is true. He had read two books on the topic by people with PhD's in the subject and he realised that either these guys have all along been lying about the topic and know it, or they got to the level of having PhD's because the evidence was always coherent. So I thought it was good on him, and then I anxiously asked what happens with Original Sin. He simply hesitated and said "I don't know".

If someone with a masters in theology comes out empty-handed then I doubt that there's no problem with evolution like you're proposing. Think about it, what are we actually being saved from? The sins that we actually can't commit because sin never entered the world?

---

I'm a little rusty on this topic, but I believe if you add up all the energy in the universe that he willed, it adds up to zero. That implies that the universe is flat (as opposed to some other abstract shape) which means everything expanded from a singularity i.e. the Big Bang.

The way i understand it, negative energy is the conclusion an argument using the Big Bang as one of its premises. NASA: "It is unknown in physics whether negative mass or negative energy densities can exist." http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/techno...paper.html
Basically, it is a theory on the level of wormholes. If you could prove that negative energy actually exists (as opposed to a mere lack of energy), you'd be proving the potential for time travel. Not to say that's not possible, but do you have any evidence for it?

Evidence for negative energy densities? That's actually the first time I've ever heard of that. I'm pretty sure the 1st law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, i.e. the universe, the total energy is equal to zero.

[Reasonable_Jeff]

If someone with a masters in theology comes out empty-handed then I doubt that there's no problem with evolution like you're proposing. Think about it, what are we actually being saved from? The sins that we actually can't commit because sin never entered the world?

Allow me to explain the view, it's the one that I adhere to.

The way Gen 1 is written is completely different than the way Gen 2 is written. The word repetition is like a song while Gen 2 is written like a historical narrative. In the original hebrew it becomes more apparent that Gen 1 is poetry.

This isn't uncommon in the Bible.

Ex 14: historical narrative about event
Ex 15: song about same event
Judge 4: historical narrative about event
Judge 5: song about same event

Gen 1 conveys what's important...In the beginning God created and it does it in a way that's beautiful and easy to remember.

Gen 2 begins the historical narrative which includes Adam and Eve.

Granted this type of evolution is different from one that says "there is no intelligent agent overseeing the process."

Within Christianity beliefs differ further within this views on how to interpret gen 2 as well.

Hope this helps!

[FallentoReason]

If someone with a masters in theology comes out empty-handed then I doubt that there's no problem with evolution like you're proposing. Think about it, what are we actually being saved from? The sins that we actually can't commit because sin never entered the world?

Allow me to explain the view, it's the one that I adhere to.

The way Gen 1 is written is completely different than the way Gen 2 is written. The word repetition is like a song while Gen 2 is written like a historical narrative. In the original hebrew it becomes more apparent that Gen 1 is poetry.

This isn't uncommon in the Bible.

Ex 14: historical narrative about event
Ex 15: song about same event
Judge 4: historical narrative about event
Judge 5: song about same event

Agreed. The Bible is definitely a collection of different types of genres.

[/quote]
Gen 1 conveys what's important...In the beginning God created and it does it in a way that's beautiful and easy to remember.[/quote]

Ok, perfect. So we have allegory so far.

Gen 2 begins the historical narrative which includes Adam and Eve.

Granted this type of evolution is different from one that says "there is no intelligent agent overseeing the process."

Ok, so you see A&E as being historical. How do they fit into evolution?

Within Christianity beliefs differ further within this views on how to interpret gen 2 as well.

Hope this helps!

But at the end of the day, you say Original Sin literally happened, correct?

I think we might be getting there, slowly hehe.

[Undeceived]

The way i understand it, negative energy is the conclusion an argument using the Big Bang as one of its premises. NASA: "It is unknown in physics whether negative mass or negative energy densities can exist." http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/techno...paper.html
Basically, it is a theory on the level of wormholes. If you could prove that negative energy actually exists (as opposed to a mere lack of energy), you'd be proving the potential for time travel. Not to say that's not possible, but do you have any evidence for it?

Evidence for negative energy densities? That's actually the first time I've ever heard of that. I'm pretty sure the 1st law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, i.e. the universe, the total energy is equal to zero.

The energy would have to be constant if our system is an isolated system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_o...modynamics ) The universe of the theoretical Big Bang has to be an isolated, closed system. The story of Creation says that the universe was not always closed--an outside source served as catalyst for all its energies, namely God. You need evidence that our system has always been closed, but that knowledge is unreachable. So I still don't know why God would use the Big Bang because there seems to be nothing more known about the Big Bang than about Creation. In the beginning there was a burst of energy from one place--what else do we know? Do you have any other arguments why a creator would use the Big Bang?

[FallentoReason]

Evidence for negative energy densities? That's actually the first time I've ever heard of that. I'm pretty sure the 1st law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, i.e. the universe, the total energy is equal to zero.

The energy would have to be constant if our system is an isolated system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_o...modynamics ) The universe of the theoretical Big Bang has to be an isolated, closed system. The story of Creation says that the universe was not always closed--an outside source served as catalyst for all its energies, namely God. You need evidence that our system has always been closed, but that knowledge is unreachable. So I still don't know why God would use the Big Bang because there seems to be nothing more known about the Big Bang than about Creation. In the beginning there was a burst of energy from one place--what else do we know? Do you have any other arguments why a creator would use the Big Bang?

I see what you're saying. I couldn't ever tell you "why" a creator would use the Big Bang. All I can really tell you is if there was a Big Bang or not.

The Big Bang theory states that the singularity was very very hot. This was proposed prior to the Nobel-prize-winning discovery by radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965, who discovered Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation that is detectable everywhere you look into the universe. CMB radiation is thought to be the remnants of this intense heat from the singularity.

NASA gathered measurements of the CMB radiation with a space probe in 2006. Together with measurements from an observatory in Chile, they were able to draw a picture of the early universe (as the CMB radiation has been bouncing around space for the past 13.7 billion years).



If I'm not mistaken, these are the "seeds of matter" that would eventually become the galaxies we observe now.

Another piece of evidence is the fact that the universe is expanding. Needless to say, this suggests that it all expanded from one single point.

So basically, the Big Bang theory predicted something, and as far as I can tell, the observations fit the theory thus far. Predictive power is a very strong confirmation of something being possibly right.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/ne..._bang.html
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/03...zoom1.html

[Whateverist]

I'm not convinced that the universe associated with the event we're calling the big bang is either closed or all there is. It is safer to say we have no way at present of appreciating anything happening at a greater scale than that. For all we know big bangs are a dime a dozen and interact in god only knows what manner, a kind of mega quantum mechanics sort of thing. Assume what you like but know it for what it is.

[Reasonable_Jeff]

You don't have to believe in original sin to be a christian FallentoReason. If you don't believe in it, that's okay. I have made mistakes and I'm sure that we all have, Jesus atonement paid for those mistakes for those that place their faith in him. Jesus and original sin do not stand or fall together.