Atheism leaves too much room for error.

[Tiberius]

1. there was no matter/energy, time, or space, literally NOTHING. Then the universe started.
(This is incorrect, energy/matter have always existed). First Law of Thermodynamics.

Whether matter has always existed is up for debate, but the Big Bang model states that 13.7 billion years ago, the universe had 0 dimensions (no space, so no matter) and consisted purely of energy.

2. The entity, known as a singularity, expanded very rapidly. Sometimes this is called an "explosion", but this is misleading. In a typical explosion, matter and energy expand into space. But there was no space to expand into. (You claim there was no space for matter and energy to expand into)

No, he said that calling the Big Bang an "explosion" is misleading because an explosion is where matter and energy expand into space, however there was no space at the beginning of the universe (0 dimensions). Instead, the Big Bang is an expansion of space and time. Stuff didn't expand into space...SPACE expanded!

3. Dicke also suggested that our universe may have been created from the remains of a previous one and that infinitesimal amounts of radiation would be detectable if this were so. (Further down, you claim there was a previous universe). therefore, allowing energy/matter to expand.

If he suggested this, then it is speculative hypothesis, nothing more.

[The_Truth]

For the sake of argument, lets say you are right about matter being eternal. Even if it is so, if to you that equals the existance of a god, where is this source now? How will you account for it's disappearance since the days claimed in the bible?

Matter is eternal. Scientists have tried to destroy atoms, but they have been unsuccessful.

It is still an overly-described, drastically stretched fable about a man who healed people by touching their foreheads, assisted in parting seas, caused a plague upon first borns and turned the water to blood..etc..

This sinigularity was the creator of life and universe. He formed a man (Jesus Christ) to walk among the human species. God proved himself to be the supreme creator. People touched his robe, and they were healed. People were flocking by the thousands so God could touch their sick babies, or close relatives that were blind, or crippled. How can atheists say God is cruel and mean. Meanwhile, he said "bring the sick to me, and I shall heal them".

I just wonder how believers can justify all that and much much more as being actual fact/truth.

I find it really hard to fathom that we are on this earth with no reason or cause. That just seems too far-fetched to me.

I mean no offence to you, it is nothing personal on my part, please bear in mind. I'm just stating what I think, ya'know?

Yes, I understand you all the way. I don't know why one person can look into the universe and see the signature of an intelligent creator, meanwhile other people look into the universe and see absolutely nothing. I guess faith is a stronger word than we realize.

But putting all joking aside. The universe and all life-form just didn't arise from nothing, by nothing. That is going against every law in science.

Science is not religion. They are not going to say "ok, this is how God created the universe.."

They have to leave religion at home when they walk into their scientific field of study. For the sake of arguments by their peers.

Some atheists claim "scientists are creating something from nothing everyday".
(That is untrue. Scientists are using materials that already exist to bring something into existence).

but how did God form something from nothing at the beginning of time? Every material and element we can see today didn't always exist. Unless it was energy/matter. But we understand today that energy/matter have always existed in some form or another.

The start of the universe was created by atoms that are so tiny and miniscule, they cannot be detected unless you are using a powerful microscope.

I can only imagine God being the creator of space and time, and life form.

It's hard to imagine everything we see in the universe was formed by materials that are so small, they can't be detected by the human eye. That's incredible if you ask me.

---

You are asking us what a being we don't believe in meant when he supposedly said something when nothing was there to hear it?

I'm asking for you guys to give this being a second thought before you dismiss him. I'm proving this cosmic singularity had the intelligence to start life and universe. Not to mention, this being made the tempature just right so the mixture for life could arise. There are just too many inconsistencies in atheism. everything had to be "just right" in order to be created.

I'm not trying to ridicule you guys. I just think you should give God a fair chance. Automatically dismissing something because you don't have evidence is a bit far-fetched. I'm showing you evidence of a highly intelligent force that existed prior to life and universe.

That intelligent force was GOD, my friends.

[Eilonnwy]

I find it really hard to fathom that we are on this earth with no reason or cause. That just seems too far-fetched to me.

Just because you can't fathom it, doesn't make it not true. That's an argument from personal incredulity. I find it far more likely that there was no underlying reason for us existing. Humans often like to apply meaning and reason to things, especially when no meaning or reason exists. We're really good at that.

But putting all joking aside. The universe and all life-form just didn't arise from nothing, by nothing. That is going against every law in science.

Common misconception of what atheists believe. No one says that something came from nothing. We don't know how the universe came to be before the big bang. We probably may never know, but that doesn't mean God did it. Just because something doesn't have an explanation doesn't mean you can explain it away with god. It's just that: unexplained.

Furthermore, the big bang cosmology is very hard for people to wrap their minds around. It makes sense in a scientific and mathematical standpoint, but that doesn't always mean our brain can understand it from a purely observational view point. Adrian posted a video in the video forums on common sense and showed how .9999.... is actually equal to 1. It flies in the face of what we consider to be possible, or make sense...but it does. So your personal incredulity says NOTHING about what is actually true.

[Darwinian]

1. there was no matter/energy, time, or space, literally NOTHING. Then the universe started.
(This is incorrect, energy/matter have always existed). First Law of Thermodynamics.

2. The entity, known as a singularity, expanded very rapidly. Sometimes this is called an "explosion", but this is misleading. In a typical explosion, matter and energy expand into space. But there was no space to expand into. (You claim there was no space for matter and energy to expand into)

3. Dicke also suggested that our universe may have been created from the remains of a previous one and that infinitesimal amounts of radiation would be detectable if this were so. (Further down, you claim there was a previous universe). therefore, allowing energy/matter to expand.

You have so much to learn about physics it's amazing....

[The_Truth]

1. there was no matter/energy, time, or space, literally NOTHING. Then the universe started.
(This is incorrect, energy/matter have always existed). First Law of Thermodynamics.

2. The entity, known as a singularity, expanded very rapidly. Sometimes this is called an "explosion", but this is misleading. In a typical explosion, matter and energy expand into space. But there was no space to expand into. (You claim there was no space for matter and energy to expand into)

3. Dicke also suggested that our universe may have been created from the remains of a previous one and that infinitesimal amounts of radiation would be detectable if this were so. (Further down, you claim there was a previous universe). therefore, allowing energy/matter to expand.

You have so much to learn about physics it's amazing....

You're correct. I never said I have all of the information.

[Darwinian]

1. there was no matter/energy, time, or space, literally NOTHING. Then the universe started.
(This is incorrect, energy/matter have always existed). First Law of Thermodynamics.

2. The entity, known as a singularity, expanded very rapidly. Sometimes this is called an "explosion", but this is misleading. In a typical explosion, matter and energy expand into space. But there was no space to expand into. (You claim there was no space for matter and energy to expand into)

3. Dicke also suggested that our universe may have been created from the remains of a previous one and that infinitesimal amounts of radiation would be detectable if this were so. (Further down, you claim there was a previous universe). therefore, allowing energy/matter to expand.

You have so much to learn about physics it's amazing....

You're correct. I never said I have all of the information.

Well then it might be a good idea not to attempt to use the subject to refute others statements and to bolster yours until you have a reasonable understanding of it. Wha'd'ya think?

[The_Truth]

1. there was no matter/energy, time, or space, literally NOTHING. Then the universe started.
(This is incorrect, energy/matter have always existed). First Law of Thermodynamics.

2. The entity, known as a singularity, expanded very rapidly. Sometimes this is called an "explosion", but this is misleading. In a typical explosion, matter and energy expand into space. But there was no space to expand into. (You claim there was no space for matter and energy to expand into)

3. Dicke also suggested that our universe may have been created from the remains of a previous one and that infinitesimal amounts of radiation would be detectable if this were so. (Further down, you claim there was a previous universe). therefore, allowing energy/matter to expand.

You have so much to learn about physics it's amazing....

You're correct. I never said I have all of the information.

Well then it might be a good idea not to attempt to use the subject to refute others statements and to bolster yours until you have a reasonable understanding of it. Wha'd'ya think?

I understand physics enough to know life and universe was created by a powerful and intelligent force.
1. Can intelligence arise from a non-intelligent source?
2. Can life arise from non-living cells? (The tempature of the universe was too crucial to suggest life didn't arise from an intelligent being). Evolution claims the human body adapts to the earth's changing enviroment.

3. What would happen to the human species if we didn't adapt to the enviroment? (We would disintegrate into nothing). I believe Evolution is a sign of intelligent design. Evolution does not disprove God in any way shape or form. Because a universal-negative cannot be proven. Therefore, evolutionists cannot dismiss God in their field of study.

Everything we can study was originated by an intelligent force.

[Darwinian]

1. Can intelligence arise from a non-intelligent source?

Yes. It clearly has.

2. Can life arise from non-living cells?

What's a non living cell? Surely by definition a cell is living, unless it's dead of course but then it must have been living at some point in order to be a cell.

(The tempature of the universe was too crucial to suggest life didn't arise from an intelligent being).

What? The temperature of the universe is the temperature of the universe. It may be true to say that if it were very different than it actually is, or was, that life may not have arisen but all that means is that it must have been the temperature it is/was otherwise we wouldn't be here to ask the question, or, there might be a very different type of life asking the same question about a very different universe.

Evolution claims the human body adapts to the earth's changing enviroment.

Organisms adapt to changing environments which result in new variations or new species otherwise they die out. This is called vicariance and humans are just as liable to it as any other species. However, humans do have this habit of changing their environment to suit them as well.

3. What would happen to the human species if we didn't adapt to the enviroment?

We adapt the environment to ourselves.

I believe Evolution is a sign of intelligent design. Evolution does not disprove God in any way shape or form.

No it doesn't disprove a god, but neither does it disprove that all life on Earth is as a result of an ancient alien experiment or a computer simulation running in the lab of a stange and alien universe or simply the result of the complex interplay of cause and effect.

Which one is most likely though?

It does however completely dismiss the Abrahamic God as described in Genesis and other works.

Because a universal-negative cannot be proven. Therefore, evolutionists cannot dismiss God in their field of study.

Just because a negative cannot be proved does not mean to say that it has any validity. I can't prove that God doesn't exist but then neither can I prove that the entire Cosmos wasn't sneezed out of the nose of a being called the great green arkleseezure. So by your definition they are both as mathematically probable as each other.

Everything we can study was originated by an intelligent force.

If the Universe looks as though there is no God, behaves as if there were no God and follows predictable rules that don't seem to require the presence of a God then I don't think that it is unreasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no God.

[Minimalist]

Did you just say the OLD TESTAMENT was written in Greek?? Don't tell that to the jews.

Don't pull your usual xtian shit. I said the oldest fragments of texts that we have of that story are in Greek. It is known as the Septuagint and dates from the early 3d century BC and was most likely written in Alexandria. Prior to the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest Hebrew Torahs were the Masoretic texts from about 1100 AD.

In plain fact, we have no way of knowing if the torah was ever written down prior to the Septuagint. Perhaps it was an oral tradition until the Greeks came along and wrote it down? Whatever, it can be stated that as of this moment we have nothing to indicate that this story existed in Hebrew prior to the late second century BC when the earliest Dead Sea Scrolls were written. The Jews, once they developed a writing system of their own which was intricate enough to handle these ideas, may have copied it into Hebrew from the Greek.

Wouldn't that fuck up your belief system!

[Kyuuketsuki]

The NEW TESTAMENT was written in Greek. The OLD TESTAMENT was written in ancient Hebrew.

As far as I can tell the oldest "old testament" as in more or less complete as it is today used by the early Christians was in Greek ... I'm no historian so that is not a fact but I would say that Retorth may have been correct.

Kyu