Now and before.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The special case is what I would go for, in terms of the existence.
That's why we can't define God; only he can define himself.

I think you mean 'special pleading', not 'special case'.  Special pleading is a logical fallacy.

If we can't define God, then we can't even think about God, it's as simple as that. Try to think about anything - poetry, a cheese sandwich, a duck, anything at all - without having defined it first.

Boru

[Cyberman]

It's all very convenient saying we can't define "God", but it's even worse than that because he immediately goes on to make three definitive assumptions about this indefinable thing: that it's male, it's sentient and it is able to define itself.

[Godscreated]

... Atlas, this is merely what I have seen from countless others from just about every religion you can think of in 16 years of online debate. When you have no positive proof with independent peer review, you resort to pretending philosophy can replace a neutral science lab.
....
Science explains nature and the universe, not religion.
All I am seeing in the OP is different words in attempt to avoid burden of proof.

I took out portions of your post to make this simpler, not to change what you had to say.

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.
Lately many things have brought the "big bang" into question and one is red shift. We also know that there is a need for dark matter to keep the "big bang assumption" alive and well with all the new data we have. I'm guessing you are also in support of dark matter. You and most all "big bang" supporters are because it holds the theory together. Yet in the last 40 years in neutral labs as you call them not one bit of dark matter has ever been detected, not a micron of evidence exist for it, period. Yet people make scientific shows and put them on TV, it's written about in magazines and scientific articles like it is the most proven thing in the history of man, and that is a bald faced lie.
Science claims it is invisible an can't be seen, once heard that before from you and them about God, where is He we can't see Him give us proof. Yet you'll accept this magic material, yes magic because it's the only thing holding the "big bang" theory together, no proof not a micron. You toss away Jesus like trash because you think He is a figment of the imagination of the Christian Church, yet we do have writings about Him and from many sources, yet you will support with your last breath an invisible magic matter while calling Christians delusional. What are you going to say after the next 40 years and the "magical matter" still hasn't a micron of actual proof from those neutral labs, which means there still will be no real and honest peer reviews?
Call me crazy and or delusional because l believe in a God who has been argued over and attested to by the likes of Newton if that's what makes you happy. Just remember that you fit your own criticism of my belief in God with your support of dark matter and it's magical properties to hold up the "big bang assumption."

GC

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

... Atlas, this is merely what I have seen from countless others from just about every religion you can think of in 16 years of online debate. When you have no positive proof with independent peer review, you resort to pretending philosophy can replace a neutral science lab.
....
Science explains nature and the universe, not religion.
All I am seeing in the OP is different words in attempt to avoid burden of proof.

I took out portions of your post to make this simpler, not to change what you had to say.

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.
Lately many things have brought the "big bang" into question and one is red shift. We also know that there is a need for dark matter to keep the "big bang assumption" alive and well with all the new data we have. I'm guessing you are also in support of dark matter. You and most all "big bang" supporters are because it holds the theory together. Yet in the last 40 years in neutral labs as you call them not one bit of dark matter has ever been detected, not a micron of evidence exist for it, period. Yet people make scientific shows and put them on TV, it's written about in magazines and scientific articles like it is the most proven thing in the history of man, and that is a bald faced lie.
Science claims it is invisible an can't be seen, once heard that before from you and them about God, where is He we can't see Him give us proof. Yet you'll accept this magic material, yes magic because it's the only thing holding the "big bang" theory together, no proof not a micron. You toss away Jesus like trash because you think He is a figment of the imagination of the Christian Church, yet we do have writings about Him and from many sources, yet you will support with your last breath an invisible magic matter while calling Christians delusional. What are you going to say after the next 40 years and the "magical matter" still hasn't a micron of actual proof from those neutral labs, which means there still will be no real and honest peer reviews?
Call me crazy and or delusional because l believe in a God who has been argued over and attested to by the likes of Newton if that's what makes you happy. Just remember that you fit your own criticism of my belief in God with your support of dark matter and it's magical properties to hold up the "big bang assumption."

GC

The cases are not parallel: There is evidence for dark matter, there is no evidence for God. Nothing in physics makes sense without the dark matter hypothesis, nothing - full stop - is helped by the God hypothesis.

Further more, 'proof' isn't measured in microns - a micron is one one-millionth of a meter, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. Also, what is a 'neutral lab'?

Boru

[Nonpareil]

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.

Not really, no.

Even if there were, it wouldn't change anything. The Big Bang theory is evidence-based; even if it is eventually overturned (which is unlikely), in the present moment there is still enough support for it to make concluding that it is true a rational thing to do. Likewise for dark matter.

Belief in gods has no supporting evidence.

Call me crazy and or delusional because l believe in a God who has been argued over and attested to by the likes of Newton if that's what makes you happy.

Newton also believed in alchemy, among other insane nonsense. Mercury poisoning will do terrible things to a man.

In case you haven't realized it yet, the thing that determines which of Isaac Newton's theories we accept (gravity and so forth), as opposed to the ones that we discard (alchemy), is evidence, Godschild.

[pocaracas]

... Atlas, this is merely what I have seen from countless others from just about every religion you can think of in 16 years of online debate. When you have no positive proof with independent peer review, you resort to pretending philosophy can replace a neutral science lab.
....
Science explains nature and the universe, not religion.
All I am seeing in the OP is different words in attempt to avoid burden of proof.

I took out portions of your post to make this simpler, not to change what you had to say.

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.
Lately many things have brought the "big bang" into question and one is red shift. We also know that there is a need for dark matter to keep the "big bang assumption" alive and well with all the new data we have. I'm guessing you are also in support of dark matter. You and most all "big bang" supporters are because it holds the theory together. Yet in the last 40 years in neutral labs as you call them not one bit of dark matter has ever been detected, not a micron of evidence exist for it, period. Yet people make scientific shows and put them on TV, it's written about in magazines and scientific articles like it is the most proven thing in the history of man, and that is a bald faced lie.
Science claims it is invisible an can't be seen, once heard that before from you and them about God, where is He we can't see Him give us proof. Yet you'll accept this magic material, yes magic because it's the only thing holding the "big bang" theory together, no proof not a micron. You toss away Jesus like trash because you think He is a figment of the imagination of the Christian Church, yet we do have writings about Him and from many sources, yet you will support with your last breath an invisible magic matter while calling Christians delusional. What are you going to say after the next 40 years and the "magical matter" still hasn't a micron of actual proof from those neutral labs, which means there still will be no real and honest peer reviews?
Call me crazy and or delusional because l believe in a God who has been argued over and attested to by the likes of Newton if that's what makes you happy. Just remember that you fit your own criticism of my belief in God with your support of dark matter and it's magical properties to hold up the "big bang assumption."

GC

I don't know what you've been reading, but...

1) By measuring the redshift we can measure how fast galaxies are moving away from our own. With that info, moving back in time, arose the notion that the universe was once in a single point. We'd be moving closer together, if we witnessed a blueshift... but no.

2) gravitational lensing around areas where no galaxies are visible is pretty good indication of some dark phenomenon, of a massive scale (massive, as in with mass ) is in place. https://www.lsst.org/science/dark-matter


This evidence may be indirect, but it's there, it's a real effect that can be measured by anyone with a good enough tool to observe the sky.

[Cyberman]

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.

Name six.

Call me crazy and or delusional because l believe in a God who has been argued over and attested to by the likes of Newton if that's what makes you happy.

I see your Isaac Newton and raise you a Stephen Hawking.

[Brian37]

This a very serious post. I don't intend to joke in it; didn't I also use double meanings.
Let's begin:

Having a start, we must have a point before that start. Let's imagine the two points: 

1-Start
2-Pre start

If taken with the same context, with the same meaning dictionary, the pre start, or 2, can always be the start within a different universe, resulting in an infinite vacuum.

But an instance of logic would suggest, that once we cross the "start" borders backwardly, the context of now will have no meaning; it will cease to exist.

The start point was suggested to be named "The Big Bang" in our universe, nobody knows anything about point 2; or "Pre start". If meanings can't even exist in that void; void itself lost its meaning before point 1; how does point 2 can even exist ?

We will never solve it. We will forever be locked tight in our context of "now"; the context that began with point 1.
Only God is the way out of this dogma of lost meaning.

What means what, when what itself loses the colors that makes it a what; when would not work since light itself is not; darkness is also not; nothing is; but everything is not.

Before point 1; nothing would mean. Context doesn't exist. How could particles be?

The laws of physics breaks down at this point, so the explanation will be beyond us. We didn't evolve with this experience. 
It is not true to say that there was nothing and then something. The term "nothing" postulates space, since all terms relating to a reality assume spacial coordinates. I can't claim to know the true explanation of the universe, but based on what is accepted here, the universe wasn't preceded by anything. 
To say God is the explanation of why there is something rather than nothing is to assume a specific relationship between existence, causality, and nothing. This is to assume a lot. 
God is actually a rather terrible explanation for the origins of the big bang, space, and time, as shown by the the principle of ignorance. An explanation such as a mind will have cognitive features, which means that a predictable pattern should be able to be deduced from such an event. This would be part of a teleological based event. However, the big bang lacks these predictable cognitive features, it is lacked in its initial conditions. You cannot overcome the random nature of this event. Physical theory breaks down at the big bang singularity. 
Also, this concept of God has ontological inconsistencies.

Atlas, nor Muslims or Christians or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists ect ect ect, nobody sees that their arguments ARE NOT different. When the believer, (insert religion here), cant win by directly peddling the holy writings or holy person they follow, they try to debunk science to point to their holy writing/person. When they cant get away with that they try to claim that science matches their holy writing/person. Every religion worldwide has pockets of humans who resort to these tactics. 

My deity is real.
My book says.
My holy writings say.
My holy person says.
My club debunks science.
My club has made scientific discoveries.

There is not one religion in the world who does not have members who make these attempts. Not one.

Funny how no religion in the world can destroy the claims of the others with objectivity and peer review. Arguing a religion is nothing more than apology, an attempt to convince oneself of that to which one has no impartial evidence. Atlas despite all his efforts, has the same problem that GC and CL has, that a Hindu and Buddhist have. Sure you can all accept parts of science, but none of you want to face that science itself has never propped up any religion, because it is a neutral tool, not an apology.

Scientific method does not point to Allah, or Yahweh or Jesus or Vishnu or Apollo. Most humans don't want to face this fact.

---

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.

Name six.

Call me crazy and or delusional because l believe in a God who has been argued over and attested to by the likes of Newton if that's what makes you happy.

I see your Isaac Newton and raise you a Stephen Hawking.

This is the shit Atlas a Muslim, and GC a Christian and even like I said in  prior posts, even Hindus and Buddhists don't want to face. They all point to their histories and individuals who make scientific discoveries. Ask Atlas and he also will point to his book and say it matches science and point to Muslims whom made scientific discoveries.

Newton got physics right sure, but that does not make the Christian god real. Newton also postulated alchemy for a while and that was absolute garbage. Arabs invented algebra so does that make Allah real if Atlas points to that? By this logic the Greek gods are the real gods because the ancient Greeks were the first to coin and use the word "atom". Funny how neither the Christian or Muslim actually believe that the use of the word "atom" back then meant they knew what an electron or proton or neutron were. Fact is when the Greeks coined that word it was simply a word saying "imagine the smallest thing you cant divide". 

The ancient Egyptians thought the sun was controlled by a deity, they could point to a real sun, but that does not mean because they were master engineers in their building and pretty artwork they knew back then what the chemical makeup of the sun was. Newton advancing some things and being right about some things does not make the God of Jesus the one true god, anymore than the Quran talking about the stars means they knew anything about modern science. 

Spend enough time debating Muslims and Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus, you will find plenty in every religion that claim science is their unique discovery and points to their club.

[Harry Nevis]

... Atlas, this is merely what I have seen from countless others from just about every religion you can think of in 16 years of online debate. When you have no positive proof with independent peer review, you resort to pretending philosophy can replace a neutral science lab.
....
Science explains nature and the universe, not religion.
All I am seeing in the OP is different words in attempt to avoid burden of proof.

I took out portions of your post to make this simpler, not to change what you had to say.

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.

It's a theory, not a fact.  And the rest of your post shows how superficial you understanding of science is.

And how crazy and delusional you are.

[Brian37]

I took out portions of your post to make this simpler, not to change what you had to say.

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.

It's a theory, not a fact.  And the rest of your post shows how superficial you understanding of science is.

And how crazy and delusional you are.

Who are you talking to? Big Bang just like Theory of Evolution is  fact just like gravity is a fact. "Theory" as a word used  in science has a far different definition that the "mere guess" theists think the word "theory" means.

"Theories" in science are solid and based on proven and tested and falsified data and observations. Big Bang Theory and Theory Of Evolution, are facts, not mere opinions. So please explain what you mean by "not fact".