[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

I admit I find Genesis the best explanation for Creation.

Day one. Create light. Day four, create light source. Yup, I'm convinced.

But I entered this debate with a question: how does something come from nothing?

That is not what the big bang theory posits. Go do some reading and come back to us.

Incidentally. What do you think was god created from? How can the creator be self-creating and not the universe? You haven't answered the question of creation, you've just moved it somewhere else.

until they can show how something comes from nothing without a Creator

I want to know where all of you damned fool explanationists got the idea that there was ever any nothing..

15d: One girl I converted to the faith (8)

Grilione ?

That is not what the big bang theory posits. Go do some reading and come back to us.

Incidentally. What do you think was god created from?

Please expand upon what the big bang theory posits.

I think God is eternal, and outside of space/time. So the concept of the act of Creation ( a linear event in space/time) is irrelevant.

But I know that other people cannot prove that God does not exist until they can show how something comes from nothing without a Creator

duh. So your central point is that god exists because we cannot prove that he doesn't?

I think God is eternal, and outside of space/time. So the concept of the act of Creation ( a linear event in space/time) is irrelevant.

I'm glad we cleared that up

duh. So your central point is that god exists because we cannot prove that he doesn't?

Not at all. My point was that there can be no such thing as a valid Atheist until there is an explanation for Creation which does not involve a divine Creator.

I don't pick quarrels with Agnostics, just Atheists, as they have no evidence. And my own faith is personal and I don't enforce it on others.

Please expand upon what the big bang theory posits.

Is google broken?

Here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I think God is eternal, and outside of space/time. So the concept of the act of Creation ( a linear event in space/time) is irrelevant.

That's convenient, isn't it. You don't understand the universe, so you invent something upon which you can apply your own made-up rules that don't apply anywhere else in the universe.

My point was that there can be no such thing as a valid Atheist until there is an explanation for Creation which does not involve a divine Creator.

Which, as I've already explained here previously, is nonsense. Human understanding is not a prerequisite to physics. There are plenty of things we don't understand, that doesn't mean they don't exist or that we get to make stuff up. If I didn't understand how aeroplanes work that wouldn't mean they're all suddenly going to fall out of the sky.

I think God is eternal, and outside of space/time. So the concept of the act of Creation ( a linear event in space/time) is irrelevant.

Ah the old, ask for evidence, then when presented with evidence, pretend your an elephant trick.

Not at all. My point was that there can be no such thing as a valid Atheist until there is an explanation for Creation which does not involve a divine Creator.

Which means exactly the same thing. You say unless we can prove that the universe wasn't made by god, then god must have made it? Yes?

That's convenient, isn't it. You don't understand the universe, so you invent something upon which you can apply your own made-up rules that don't apply anywhere else in the universe.

The big bang theory is quite inconvenient for Atheists, as it implies a moment of Creation. No?

[i]badnewz - Member

I'm a Christian

Ooooh! You kept that quiet, you little monkey!

Again, what is your point? Is this a debate or just (desperate, rather sad) sledging?

But of course I deserve this, because people who believe in God should not be tolerated.[/i]

Sledging?

Sledging?

I've not even had a go at you at all; you're doing a wonderful job all by yourself.

Do carry on, but try to allow for a little humour, a little acceptance that I don't hate you and all you stand for, I just enjoy your attempts at mental gymnastics.

The big bang theory is quite inconvenient for Atheists, as it implies a moment of Creation. No?

It implies a moment that we have not been able to explain. Yet.

The big bang theory is quite inconvenient for Atheists, as it implies a moment of Creation. No?

No, it implies a moment of creation. Not sure how that's in any way inconvenient. My kettle boiled earlier and created steam, I'm fairly sure it wasn't divine steam.

I've not even had a go at you at all; you're doing a wonderful job all by yourself.

Do carry on, but try to allow for a little humour, a little acceptance that I don't hate you and all you stand for, I just enjoy your attempts at mental gymnastics.

Please point out these gymnastics. I stand by my original point: until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing, without evoking a moment of Creation, then there can be no such thing as valid, rational Atheism.

Alternatively the creation story is a form of poetry? Hence the poetic symmetry between Days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6? Seems more plausible than something to take at face value?

My kettle boiled earlier and created steam, I'm fairly sure it wasn't divine steam.

But you turned the kettle on right>?

Alternatively the creation story is a form of poetry? Hence the poetic symmetry between Days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6? Seems more plausible than something to take at face value?

Yes, completely. A literal reading of the Bible doesn't work. It is a work of poetry and metaphor. But still in my opinion revealing of the divine will.

Look badnewz I applaud your efforts but can you stop emailing me requesting your "stw Big Hitter" certificate.

Your Forum History only goes to 20 pages, it's simply not enough yet.

But you turned the kettle on right>?

I knew I'd set myself up for a fall there as soon as I'd hit 'send', I was hoping you wouldn't notice. (-:

Point I'm trying to make is, "creation" does not implicitly imply "creator." If god can create himself, why can't the universe? Who created god?

[i]I stand by my original point: until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing, without evoking a moment of Creation, then there can be no such thing as valid, rational Atheism.[/i]

Ah, so you are taking on the responsibilty for defining Atheism are you?

Atheists don't need to be defined, thanks. We're quite happy not being characterised by people who think differently to us.

At least you've stopped trolling.

Who created god?

Established that earlier, "magic"

until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing, without evoking a moment of Creation, then there can be no such thing as valid, rational Atheism.

Until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing,then an atheists cannot explain it, that is all. It does not prove the existence of god. It proves that we don't understand it yet.

until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing, without evoking a moment of Creation, then there can be no such thing as valid, rational Atheism.

I've already pointed out that no-one (other than you) is claiming that something came from nothing. You can stand by your point all you like, your original premise that you're asking us to explain is incorrect.

Right chaps I'm really quite confused now! As with you I mean no ill will. I still think there is a debate to be had here. But the last few comments are frankly ridiculous and not worthy of answering.
So I will sign off now. Thank you for a good debate however - and I'm sure there will be another time!
Best wishes
Stephen

man up, running away is just proof you are beaten.

man up, running away is just proof you are beaten.

I disagree. I'm a) bored with your silly, convoluted attempts at being clever and b) want to have my tea.

Tara Chaps - but we will talk again!

convoluted attempts at being clever

I understand why you would become bored with what you cannot understand, it makes sense that the easier explaination for you is God.

I lean towards A.J. Ayer and the idea that statements are either verifiable or meaningless.

God's existance or otherwise is unverifiable and so any discussion about it is literally meaningless. Fun though.

Tara Chaps

izzatt a porn star ❓

Fun though.

Absolutely.

In 2001 Dr. Jeremy George, the attending physician, claimed that AJ Ayer had confided to him: "I saw a Divine Being. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revise all my books and opinions."

Then again like me he did support Spurs so I wouldnt trust his judgement.

until an Atheist can explain how something comes from nothing, without evoking a moment of Creation, then there can be no such thing as valid, rational Atheism.

Big bang theory, evolution - two credible theories with evidence to support them that explain how we got here

teamhurtmore - Member

Alternatively the creation story is a form of poetry? Hence the poetic symmetry between Days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6? Seems more plausible than something to take at face value?

So we are back to the pick and mix theory of religion are we? chose which bits to believe in? Ignore the bits that are inconvenient.

how do you stand on the virgin birth? Metaphor?

In 2001 Dr. Jeremy George, the attending physician, claimed that AJ Ayer had confided to him: "I saw a Divine Being. I'm afraid I'm going to have to revise all my books and opinions."

I note that you've selected the part of that article that supports your view and neglected the later part where the reliability of the doctor's quote is questioned. Fortunately it's there for anyone else with access to Wikipedia to look up and decide for themselves.

The viability of Ayer's work doesn't hinge on his later comments.

Big bang theory, evolution - two credible theories with evidence to support them that explain how we got here

I don't think they do. There is still the problem of Creation and how something comes from nothing.

Stephen Hawking says Gravity could have created the Big Bang, but as John Lennox has replied, what created Gravity?

There is no problem of creation. these two things answer it.

The viability of Ayer's work doesn't hinge on his later comments.

I agree. Ayer is interesting, more subtle than Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins. And overall I would agree with the quote you featured above.

But I think if he were living now he would be surprised at the lack of intellectual integrity behind much of the New Atheism, which is regurgitated so faithfully by the pseudo-intellectuals on here.

There is no problem of creation. these two things answer it.

Please explain how, exactly?

Not at all TJ, indeed never argued for pick and mix. I do not agree with many issues supported by many orthodox religions but can still respect the reasons why they argue for them.

Actually the poetry idea came from some poorly educated, indoctrinated child incapable of independent thought (apparently) 😉

Edit: It would be a bit narrow minded to critique something without considering different interpretations and the context in which they were written

But I think if he were living now he would be surprised at the lack of intellectual integrity behind much of the New Atheism, which is regurgitated so faithfully by the pseudo-intellectuals on here.

I'd suggest that speculating about the thoughts of a dead philosopher in order to criticise forum posts is not itself a great example of intellectual integrity. Or indeed logically valid in any way.

I'd suggest that speculating about the thoughts of a dead philosopher in order to criticise forum posts is not itself a great example of intellectual integrity. Or indeed logically valid in any way.

This is a good point. I stand corrected.

There is still the problem of Creation and how something comes from nothing.

You keep saying this like it's something anyone believes. It's not. Read the Wikipedia link I sent you.

You keep saying this like it's something anyone believes. It's not. Read the Wikipedia link I sent you.

I have old chap. And it still doesn't explain how something came from nothing.

We are in a cycle which is no longer virtuous. Goodnite and God Bless.

There is still the problem of Creation and how something comes from nothing.

Your argument is essentially that of infinite regress.

Whatever explanation is provided for the origins of the universe you can say 'but what was before that' or 'What caused that'

To my mind this is only a fruitful line of reasoning if you continue to inquire into those causes. Slotting god in as a cause is a cop out as it removes the need for any further inquiry.

[img] [/img]