DESTROY NOAH'S ARK

[SteelCurtain]

That's the dilemma isn't it? Any explanation of the origin of the universe will not be rational, you're just going to have to accept that a supernatural event took place at some point. I find it curious however that you state how you don't know how the universe was created, but somehow are quite certain that it wasn't God.

Woah... that's quite a jump you made there. From I don't know to it's unknowable and something supernatural happened? Kindly refrain from misrepresenting me.

Not knowing is not a bad thing. It doesn't mean that that vacuum must be filled. I'm okay with allowing more evidence to come in and answering that question in it's own time. And there is nothing to suggest that something supernatural happened. As a matter of fact, it has been shown that matter coalescing from nonmatter is part of the natural order of things.

I don't claim to know the origins of the universe. I am quite sure it wasn't farted into existence by a dyslexic flamingo. It is just as curious that I don't think that happened as it is for me not thinking a god created it. The evidence is the same.

How can you begin to dispute something if you have no basis on which to form your argument? If you have no peticular belief or theory on the creation of the universe then you'd have to take a neutral stance because you "don't know".

I sure can begin to dispute something for which there is no evidence. You are showing your profound ignorance on every level. Your contention here is that since I don't pretend to know how the universe began, I cannot possibly evaluate the evidence (or profound lack thereof) for your claim? Come on. You're better than that. Probably not.

[Rampant.A.I.]

You are not being logical. "I don't know" is the only rational answer.

We have good evidence that something like the Big Bang occurred, we have no evidence of multiverses or gods.

I don't believe any of the explanations, but I only seriously consider the ones for which there is evidence.
I also summarily dismiss the ones that are non-logical or contradictory such as a steady-state universe or one that involves a creator that is eternal.

But you stated

And your descriptions of what your god can do are indistinguishable from magic.

mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun

1. the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
   

It seems to me that the "big bang" falls under that definition. So if you agree with the "big bang" theory (and it sounds like you lean in that direction) then explain how the universe creating itself out of nothing is not as ridiculous or as "magical" as God doing it?

Natural events not involving supernatural forces would by definition be the opposite of influence by supernatural forces.

---

Really.

A sea grass that lives in relatively warm, shallow salt water (Mediterranean Sea from 1-35 meters depth) could survive after being submerged in deeper, colder brackish water as well as silt / sedimentation?

You know this, how?

You do realize that the habitat ranges of sea life tends to be a lot narrower than "must live in water", do you not?

Of coarse I know that. You however do not know the conditions any more than I do, I said it was possible and apparently it survived.

GC

---

Your 'definition' was incorrect.
"Kind were those which can not interbreed, that does not hold true with today's definition of species."

That definition lacks the necessity of producing fertile offspring.

Regardless, you completely underestimate even how many 'kinds' there would be.

And your descriptions of what your god can do are indistinguishable from magic.

mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun

1. the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
   

You sir are now being ridiculous.

Yes, how dare you bring factual definitions for words into a discussion! That disproves his claim he doesn't believe in magic! For shame!

---

Can u define a god?

God simply means "object of worship" which is why in the beginning, God was not "God" but was called "Elohim" or self existing one. As far as definition goes, I would have a much better chance at defining the universe than God (Is the creation greater than the creator?). Which is why I choose to accept it by faith.

I don't understand why the word "faith" so irksome to so many of you when you yourselves acknowledge that you can provide no answers.

convinced me. Now how do we get from deism (universe created by a deity), to your god? Unless you are a deist yourself.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Because "I don't know" is not an expression of faith.

"I don't know, it could be X but there's more evidence for Y, so it's probably Y"

"I don't know, therefore the only logical explanation is G, O, A, and E" is an expression of faith.

And faith + lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary = irrational faith.

Words have meaning. Deal with it.

[Huggy Bear]

---

That's the dilemma isn't it? Any explanation of the origin of the universe will not be rational, you're just going to have to accept that a supernatural event took place at some point. I find it curious however that you state how you don't know how the universe was created, but somehow are quite certain that it wasn't God.

---

Woah... that's quite a jump you made there. From I don't know to it's unknowable and something supernatural happened? Kindly refrain from misrepresenting me.

Not knowing is not a bad thing. It doesn't mean that that vacuum must be filled. I'm okay with allowing more evidence to come in and answering that question in it's own time. And there is nothing to suggest that something supernatural happened. As a matter of fact, it has been shown that matter coalescing from nonmatter is part of the natural order of things.

smh, now who's doing the mental gymnastics? Matter forming out of thin air is the very definition of "supernatural". Also you state that it "has been shown", where is the evidence? According to the "law of conservation of matter" matter cannot be created or destroyed.

I don't claim to know the origins of the universe. I am quite sure it wasn't farted into existence by a dyslexic flamingo. It is just as curious that I don't think that happened as it is for me not thinking a god created it. The evidence is the same.

remove the flamingo and you have the big bang. All kidding, aside you're wrong, there maybe no evidence for the dyslexic flamingo, but there is evidence that matter can be transformed from energy. Isn't God described as light?

John 1(KJV)
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not

---

How can you begin to dispute something if you have no basis on which to form your argument? If you have no peticular belief or theory on the creation of the universe then you'd have to take a neutral stance because you "don't know".

---

I sure can begin to dispute something for which there is no evidence. You are showing your profound ignorance on every level. Your contention here is that since I don't pretend to know how the universe began, I cannot possibly evaluate the evidence (or profound lack thereof) for your claim? Come on. You're better than that. Probably not.

You cannot dispute something "for which there is no evidence" with "I don't know". Saying "I don't know" is admitting ignorance. How can you even begin to dispute something from a position of ignorance?

Let me make it simple for you. If I told you I [insert any activity here] yesterday, could you dispute it?

---

Because "I don't know" is not an expression of faith.

"I don't know, it could be X but there's more evidence for Y, so it's probably Y"

"I don't know, therefore the only logical explanation is G, O, A, and E" is an expression of faith.

And faith + lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary = irrational faith.

Words have meaning. Deal with it.

I don't think you know what faith is. Faith and proof or "evidence" cannot coexist. Lets take the expression "leap of faith" for example, faith is no longer required if you have proof of where you're leaping.

[Chas]

Really.

A sea grass that lives in relatively warm, shallow salt water (Mediterranean Sea from 1-35 meters depth) could survive after being submerged in deeper, colder brackish water as well as silt / sedimentation?

You know this, how?

You do realize that the habitat ranges of sea life tends to be a lot narrower than "must live in water", do you not?

Of coarse I know that. You however do not know the conditions any more than I do, I said it was possible and apparently it survived.

GC

---

Your 'definition' was incorrect.
"Kind were those which can not interbreed, that does not hold true with today's definition of species."

That definition lacks the necessity of producing fertile offspring.

Regardless, you completely underestimate even how many 'kinds' there would be.

And your descriptions of what your god can do are indistinguishable from magic.

mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun

1. the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
   

You sir are now being ridiculous.

You, sir, continue to be obtuse. And poor at punctuation.

Please explain how anything I said is 'ridiculous'?

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

OMG THIS FUCKING THREAD STILL EXISTS.

OK, what the hell... let me try posting here right now:

Hmm... was "Noah" sexy?

Hmm... "Noah" was a heterosexual man with an enormous beard who had a family who spent like 40 days and nights with a lot of animals, and probably fucked all of them.

CONCLUSION: AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW MAAAAAAAAAAAAAN... "Noah" was not sexy!

[Chas]

You are not being logical. "I don't know" is the only rational answer.

We have good evidence that something like the Big Bang occurred, we have no evidence of multiverses or gods.

I don't believe any of the explanations, but I only seriously consider the ones for which there is evidence.
I also summarily dismiss the ones that are non-logical or contradictory such as a steady-state universe or one that involves a creator that is eternal.

But you stated

And your descriptions of what your god can do are indistinguishable from magic.

mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun

1. the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
   

It seems to me that the "big bang" falls under that definition. So if you agree with the "big bang" theory (and it sounds like you lean in that direction) then explain how the universe creating itself out of nothing is not as ridiculous or as "magical" as God doing it?

Which part of "I don't know" do you not understand?
It's really simple - I don't know what preceded the Big Bang. I don't know if there was a Big Bang - however there is convincing evidence that there was a beginning to our universe and it looked a lot like what is described be the Big Bang.

However, believing in an eternal being is not rational because there is not only no evidence of such, it leads to more questions than it answers.

[Huggy Bear]

But you stated

It seems to me that the "big bang" falls under that definition. So if you agree with the "big bang" theory (and it sounds like you lean in that direction) then explain how the universe creating itself out of nothing is not as ridiculous or as "magical" as God doing it?

Which part of "I don't know" do you not understand?
It's really simple - I don't know what preceded the Big Bang. I don't know if there was a Big Bang - however there is convincing evidence that there was a beginning to our universe and it looked a lot like what is described be the Big Bang.

Then you should restrict your answer to just" I don't know". But instead you continue to offer theories e.g.

"I don't know if there was a Big Bang - however there is convincing evidence that there was a beginning to our universe and it looked a lot like what is described be the Big Bang."

However, believing in an eternal being is not rational because there is not only no evidence of such, it leads to more questions than it answers.

Any explanation of the creation of the universe will lead to more questions than answers. Believing in a creator is no more irrational than believing the universe created itself.

[Chad32]

Can u define a god?

God simply means "object of worship" which is why in the beginning, God was not "God" but was called "Elohim" or self existing one. As far as definition goes, I would have a much better chance at defining the universe than God (Is the creation greater than the creator?). Which is why I choose to accept it by faith.

I don't understand why the word "faith" so irksome to so many of you when you yourselves acknowledge that you can provide no answers.

convinced me. Now how do we get from deism (universe created by a deity), to your god? Unless you are a deist yourself.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Science has provided many answers that religious texts have not. The very origin of the universe is one of the few places to put a deity, because science doesn't have every single answer yet.

Well, the believe that the universe was divinely created is deism. I suppose you're a theist, meaning you believe your god still interacts with this world and wants its people to worship it. Have a relationship with it. That's still a pretty big stretch from deism. A deist may believe that a god created the universe, then just sat back and watched. He doesn't make ultimatums or commandments or anything. You mentioned Elohim, who was the leader of a pantheon of Canaanite gods. Another member of the pantheon was Yahweh. Tou think the creator is one of these? Or you think Zeus, Odin, Osiris, and such are just different names for the same guy?

[max-greece]

Then you should restrict your answer to just" I don't know". But instead you continue to offer theories .

I'm not sure why I picked this particular piece of nonsense up out of everything written but in point of fact it would only be someone who doesn't know who might offer theories. Someone who knows has no need of them.

There are many theories as to how it all began - but they are not all magic. Some are based on best possible explanations from current scientific theories. They may still be wrong - but there is a lot of science behind them so they are reasonable attempts at answering the problem. God isn't.

[Huggy Bear]

Then you should restrict your answer to just" I don't know". But instead you continue to offer theories .

I'm not sure why I picked this particular piece of nonsense up out of everything written but in point of fact it would only be someone who doesn't know who might offer theories. Someone who knows has no need of them.

There are many theories as to how it all began - but they are not all magic. Some are based on best possible explanations from current scientific theories. They may still be wrong - but there is a lot of science behind them so they are reasonable attempts at answering the problem. God isn't.

Fine then, offer the best scientific theory of how something can be created out of pure nothingness.