I am an Agnostic Theist

[Lion IRC]

...atheists don't usually bring up the argument of the Big Bang, except as a counter to the theists' assertion that their god did it.

I only bring up the Big Bang to support the point that God did it.

[Cyberman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

[Clueless Morgan]

For instance, the one eyed one nosed flying purple hippo daddy could've made everything.

Excuse me, it's the One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater. Yeesh, get your purple creatures straight.

Yes, but the problem I am having trouble getting over is, it is possible that a Sky-Daddy did in fact make everything, because there were no rules before everything.

Why don't you believe that a bunch of smurfs rode on the backs of a squadron of flying Pegasus-type horses to litter the universe with universe-seeding proto-plasma which would coalesce into planets, stars, asteroids, blackholes, galaxies and nebulae once Thor hammered a leprechaun up Big Foot’s ass and that's how the universe was created? By your logic that's equally as plausible an explanation for the origins of the universe as a Sky-Daddy or the Big Bang. After all, there were no rules before everything. Do you believe in Pegasus-riding smurfs now?

Your belief in something should be in line with the amount of evidence supporting that thing. Lots of evidence warrants a strong belief, little evidence warrant weak belief, no evidence warrants no belief. Additionally, you need to consider the opposing evidence or critiques of the evidence you feel warrants some amount of belief.

Evolution = (TONS of evidence affirming the theory of evolution by natural selection) + (NO evidence contradicting the theory of evolution by natural selection) therefore a strong belief is warranted

Creation via Pesus-rising smurfs = (NO evidence supporting the theory of smurfs) + (At least one theory of the origin of the universe providing testable hypotheses) therefore no belief is warranted in Pegasus-riding smurfs.

Origins of Life = (Several theories providing testable hypotheses) therefore belief in one hypothesis over another should be apportioned according to the amount of evidence supporting it.

[FallentoReason]

...atheists don't usually bring up the argument of the Big Bang, except as a counter to the theists' assertion that their god did it.

I only bring up the Big Bang to support the point that God did it.

Non-sequitur. God-of-the-gaps. Next...

[freedomfromforum]

Flip a coin and stick with it (none of that best two out of three crap). Seriously, it seems to work for theists in choosing a god to grovel at.

[TheBeardedDude]

Theism says god has always existed (I should note that not all versions necessarily say that).

The popular view through science is that the Universe has always existed (aka, the big bang is the origin of time along with space).

If theism postulates that god must have always existed and science says the universe has always existed, then why not just call the thing that has always existed, "the universe" since we know of its existence without question?

Occam's razor and all that.

[Cinjin]

Yes, but the problem I am having trouble getting over is, it is possible that a Sky-Daddy did in fact make everything, because there were no rules before everything.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at Flair. You're stating the obvious and then contemplating why no one can rule it out for you. Sorry pal, humanity doesn't yet know the answer. What in the hell do you want us to tell you???

Atheists are going to scoff at your assertion. Theists are going to judge you for your lack of faith, and me, being a Deist (of sorts) will tell you that it doesn't matter man. Why in the hell is it so important to know??? Live your life well and try not to pay attention to the asshats that keep telling you about their favorite god and how he's going to burn you forever if you don't grovel before him.


Honestly! How do people not get this??

[Simon Moon]

and me, being a Deist (of sorts) will tell you that it doesn't matter man. Why in the hell is it so important to know???

I agree with everything you said, except the above.

It is in human nature to want to know answers. It is this nature that has been the driving force behind every advance humanity has made.

The best minds in the world are working on the answer at places like CERN. At some level, finding the answer is important to human curiosity.

Of course, the problems start when the various dogmatic religions claim they do know the answer. Many of them are willing to kill for their version, persecute those that are different based on the ancient texts that gave them their version, force their version on others, etc.

[Cinjin]

Theism says god has always existed (I should note that not all versions necessarily say that).

The popular view through science is that the Universe has always existed (aka, the big bang is the origin of time along with space).

If theism postulates that god must have always existed and science says the universe has always existed, then why not just call the thing that has always existed, "the universe" since we know of its existence without question?

Occam's razor and all that.

I've heard a theory that the universe is simply cyclical. Every trillions upon trillions of years it collapses with a big bang that serves as both the ending and the beginning of the universe - allowing for no real original beginning. If time and space are finite, this would also lend itself to the plausibility that the universe has always been, since time is a mere side effect of the universe's cyclical nature.


Obviously no one has evidence for this, but I would still choose this theory over talking snakes, magic trees, rib women and a narcissist wizard that eventually drowns everyone on the planet for behaving the way he created them.

[TheBeardedDude]

Theism says god has always existed (I should note that not all versions necessarily say that).

The popular view through science is that the Universe has always existed (aka, the big bang is the origin of time along with space).

If theism postulates that god must have always existed and science says the universe has always existed, then why not just call the thing that has always existed, "the universe" since we know of its existence without question?

Occam's razor and all that.

I've heard a theory that the universe is simply cyclical. Every trillions upon trillions of years it collapses with a big bang that serves as both the ending and the beginning of the universe - allowing for no real original beginning. If time and space are finite, this would also lend itself to the plausibility that the universe has always been, since time is a mere side effect of the universe's cyclical nature.


Obviously no one has evidence for this, but I would still choose this theory over talking snakes, magic trees, rib women and a narcissist wizard that eventually drowns everyone on the planet for behaving the way he created them.

There is actually evidence against that, since the Universe is not only expanding but expanding at an accelerating rate. It doesn't appear that it will slow down and it can't pull itself back together via gravity when it's too spread out. (the square of the distance and all that)