You acknowledge that it is something about which very little is known...

And yet you imply that you understand things about it.

To me, the reasonable course is to acknowledge that we don't know what happened prior to X (~14 billion years ago). How do you get from "I don't know" to "it seems like there must be an outside force" ?

Because if we assume that no outside force exists, is it not a safe assumption that the laws of the universe that exist now also existed at that time? Since these principles are constant, if energy or matter can not just "appear" today, why should we believe that matter or energy just "appeared" at any given point in time?

The reason I cannot confirm that my belief is absolutely true, but can criticize the opposing belief is simply a matter of the "sample size" of our knowledge. For example, even if I make the claim that God made the universe, I cannot prove to you that this is true because I cannot say "So yesterday I went outside and God created a bundle of energy before me." However, I can analyze matter and energy because I am familiar with its basic properties. I cannot say, "I was just sitting at my desk and a cup just materialized by the laws of science."

Although with nano technology this may - I said may - one day be possible.

FYP

His initial post was actually correct.

And so was his FYP. Are you meaning to say your omniscient God doesn't have the ability or powers needed to prove himself?

That is not what I'm saying at all. Understanding and experiencing God is obtainable by all who seek it. However, atheists like to believe that because it didn't immediately happen for them that it is impossible for all. Some spectacular physical event is not necessary, as the reasons to believe already exist; the only person who can discover these reasons is the person, therefore, Praixing's original post was correct in my opinion.

Yeah, you are making assertions about the universe again. I'm not sure if there is anything I can say that will get through to you, except maybe that I freely admit that I don't understand what it means for the universe to begin, to be the size of a golf ball, or for time to not apply. And I don't think it stands to reason that using reason alone, and without the benefit of a tremendous education in physics and some serious scholarly effort, I should be able to figure out what "must be."

And I'm quite happy with the company I find myself in in admitting this.

I do not see the error for which you dismiss my logic. My point is that if the basic laws of physics are universal (energy or matter cannot be created nor destroyed), then they should be applicable to any situation which involves matter and energy. I am then applying this logic to what many believe to be the origin of the universe and questioning it using the basic properties that I can easily observe today.

Again, you are making assertions that are flat out wrong. Do you believe that all atheists were born into atheist families? There are a fair amount of people on this board that were longtime Christians, seeked God, tried day after day to reach him, understand him, and found nothing. Although I haven't had this conversation with you before, please don't respond with "You weren't looking hard enough" or anything of that matter. It has been a popular response and it reeks of arrogance.

I was not going to make that claim, nor do I believe that all atheist were brought up as atheists. Likewise, I believe that there are many Christians by label who do not recognize God. However, I have also encountered many Christians who have recognized God and demonstrate it through their daily lives.

However, I think I am justified in saying that atheists have not encountered or experienced God and do not believe it to be an unreasonable claim.

There isn't really anything more I can say on this matter.

I was just throwing it out there. I didn't think you were going to say it, I was just saving myself from having to hear it again.

True for some. Others have experienced god only to later realize what that really means.

I truly believed in and experienced God and saint nic when i was young.

Disregard this post.

Okay, I've just accepted the fact that a deist/generic god/force exists.

Gogogo...

(we'll do this in a new thread if you want)

OK, now try to imagine it.

Wow, this stuff really works! I just beat up 3 h0m0s, bought some slaves, and bombed my first abortion clinic.

j/k I get nothing

I wonder what that was going to say?

An inability to understand what happened ~14 billion years ago when the laws of physics seem to be inadequate for explaining, modeling, predicting, etc., does not imply anything. It is simply a lack of understanding.

From what little I know of physics, it is not evident to me that we ought to expect the Newtonian laws of physics to hold/apply when considering the origin of the universe.

As far as quantum mechanics goes, I don't know if what you are saying makes any sense or not.

Regardless, if we observe apparent violations of what we think of as laws, then we simply must revise the laws.

Your logic is flawed because you are essentially creating a false dichotomy of 1. either science is right; or 2. god exists. And then you are declaring without proof that science must be wrong, because it doesn't make sense to you, or you don't understand, or science has not yet, and may not ever, figure everything out; thus, god exists.

If you really want your logic to hinge upon something scientific, I think you had better consult some scientists. As it stands right now, I don't think the majority opinion of cosmologists who study this kind of thing is, "oh my god, the laws of physics are violated, there must be a universal all knowing entity gumming up the works."

Now study the historic life of Jesus. /thread

Er...a deist force does not intervene, this is one of the most common staples of deism...that the creator only operates with the laws/rules he put in place.

So if Our House is imagining a deist god and looking at the historic life of Jesus he is pretty going to assume that Jesus (assuming he existed) was merely a human with no special link to any divine being.

How about the the historic life of Buddha? Or the historic life of Mohammed? Or the historic life of Zoroaster?

It was a rather rude post that I should not have made. That is why it was erased.

Do I seriously have to explain this again.....?

Oh right, I forgot that Jesus is our lord and saviour. My mistake.