MrSmith Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 What makes me laugh is the added layers of complication that are necessitated in order to add the extra ingredient of "god". We don't even know if nothing is possible, but we are constantly asked "how can something come from nothing?" like that is some sort of gotcha question. Basically start with nothing (which might be impossible), add god, and magic something. Why not just something (which we know exists)? Besides, what magicked god? It puzzles me as to why some people just can’t get their head round the fact that the universe could have always existed, there are only two possibilities, it as always existed or it hasn’t, the fact it exists makes it more likely that it has always existed. Even if there was no matter in it, it is still likely the vacuum as always existed. Even with our fantastic imagination it is impossible to think of nothing at all, no matter, energy or vacuum, so there is no reason to even consider the fact that nothing is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Life is merely the inevitable product of creation. Was creation the inevitable product of something also, or was it simply an unknown, causeless event that has no reason to create life. No it’s the inevitable consequence of the existence of matter, the matter doesn’t need to have been created and as far as we can prove it can’t be created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Buddhists are all atheists! Learn something new every day. No I already knew that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No it’s the inevitable consequence of the existence of matter, the matter doesn’t need to have been created and as far as we can prove it can’t be created. That's not strictly true... http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html Matter & anti-matter can be created with enough energy & a way to keep the matter & anti-matter apart so they don't convert back into energy. It's just a lot easier to use matter that already exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You implied that children could be atheist but not realize that they are atheist if they don't know or understand the meaning of the word atheist. thats true. I think I will have to assume you did quote the wrong post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 That's not strictly true... http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html Matter & anti-matter can be created with enough energy & a way to keep the matter & anti-matter apart so they don't convert back into energy. It's just a lot easier to use matter that already exists. Sorry I didn’t make myself clear. Energy and matter are different states of the same thing, as far as we can prove we cannot create matter from nothing at all, we can create matter from energy and energy from matter, but we can’t create either from nothing, therefore it is highly likely one or both have always existed. If we destroy matter we end up with energy and that energy would produce exactly the same amount of matter if we could turn it back into matter, so technically it wasn’t destroyed it was just changed into something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You mean the chocolate in the form of an egg which is still associated with the ancient religious beliefs and ideological symbolism of birth and re-birth? No, I mean the chocolate in the form of an egg which I associate with little chickens and the slight nausea brought upon by eating too much chocolate. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 So according to ignosticism, ignostic atheism is having no belief in neither God/s, theism or atheism?.. this is getting confusing by the second. No. For the same reason I can't say whether I believe in a Blahdeblah beast until someone tells me what one is. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No, I mean the chocolate in the form of an egg which I associate with little chickens and the slight nausea brought upon by eating too much chocolate. jb I thought the eggs were laid by the bunnies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I don't have to define God to not have a belief in it. Actually, I think you do. If for example I asked you if you believed in blahdeblah beasts you would have no idea whether you did or not until I told you what one is (it might say just be my childhood name for polar bears). The problem is there are as many different definitions of what god is as there are people on the planet, for some it's the Biblical creator of the Universe and bullier of mankind where for others it's is simply mother nature or the Universe itself. So, without knowing what someone means when they say 'god' you can't know whether you believe in it or not. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.