No.

yep, 'fraid so

Anyone who knows God, knows He is omnipresent. That really doesn't explain anything to atheists.

Probably incorrect. I can't speak for other atheists, but I don't know what (if anything) "created" the universe, or whether that idea even makes sense. I'd guess that most of the atheists here would agree with that.

Some cosmologists have proposed, based on ideas from string theories, that our observable universe was "caused" by the collision of branes in some higher-dimensional space. However they would be the first to admit these models are highly speculative.

Yes, a near unanimity of scientists agree the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the (observable) universe has been expanding from a comparatively hot dense state for the past approx 13.7 billion years. So what?

LOL wat? There is absolutely nothing about the expansion model which requires or implies "more and more" is being created by something external to the universe. As the universe expanded and cooled, stars, galaxies, and planets formed according to known physical laws. No invisible magic man required. Where do you get these silly ideas?

Wrong again. Nobody knows what happened before the Planck Epoch, nor what is the boundary condition of the observable universe.

Just because we don't know something that doesn't mean there is epistemological license to make stuff up.

but that's not what anyone else means by god. So you're simply changing the definition without actually making anything clearer.

Huh?? We DO know the pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians, due to a bunch of, you know, evidence. We may not know all the details regarding how they did it, and if so, those remain open questions. But we don't make a huge leap to "well they must have been there all along, ldo."

It's called accepting things in so far as the evidence warrants. Why is that so difficult to understand?

"probably"... so your another atheist that is going to assume that the universe was just there...nothing started it....then how is it expanding?...

If you go with that theory, it was caused and a result of something (created)...."proposed"... well what do you "propose" the branes came from....

Therefore it had to of started from somewhere.

If the universe is expanding , it is creating more and more space....

Well that Planck Epoch is eventually going to get earlier and earlier, do you guys really think you are eventually going to hit a brick wall? Even if you hit a brick wall, where did that wall come from?

an explosion of dense matter? I've never seen any discussion of the Big Bang that describes it as a 'being.'

possibly.

We don't know that. We have theories but we don't know. There are unlimited numbers of things that we don't understand or know the origins of. I have no idea what, if anything, is eternal. I only know that there's no compelling reason to say, "I don't know... so it must have been God."

Is there a constant sound of wind as everything flies above your head? So... even with your example-- you've proven my point. Thank you. you acknowledge that the boy doesn't know where we come from. So he has no answers. Likely has no concept of eternity, the universe, etc. And if he wasn't raised in a religious household, he could be an atheist.

So.... once again, it is a mystery what you were laughing at above.

Anyone who knows Allah knows that.

Anyone who knows Zeus knew that as well.

Anyone who knew (fill in the blank) god know that as well.

You wouldn’t happen to see a similar problem with the theory you’re proposing?

Its seems at a very basic, if people like Gunth want to discuss what he thinks atheist beleive, he could read up on it. He seems pretty ignorant on the theories he's trying to dismiss. That's nothing new here but, it would be refreshing if every post didn't have to be correct for its incorrect assumptions.

NO you're wrong. It is as a basis.

Hindus, Islams, Christians share this knowledge, the difference lies in the personification and the imagination and the myth.

Atheists recognise the BS here in these parts, but they ignore the base truth which is fundamental and indisputable and you cannot defeat it in argument.

This is why religion exists in the first place, because this base, logically, it has to be true, everything else is man produced guessing

not a chance

What caused/created the explosion. What created the dense matter?

"being could be understood as anything that can be said to be, which is opposed to nonexistence"

"possibly"... What would possess you to even have this thought. Everything you understand was created from something. So therefore if you don't understand it yet, it must be different. Got to love that human mind.


"theories"... Which go back to what was stated earlier... you don't know...so therefore you are slightly open to the idea that God exists. So how can you be atheist.

insults now... laughing? who was laughing at this? did you assume i was laughing? The little kid assumes we were created from something if he asks the question like that....

That is what this thread is about kurto, what an atheist believes. If you can't handle this discussion your welcome to leave.

You don't see a problem with this theory that is being proposed?

Is English your native language? (I'm not kidding.)

How many times do I need to repeat myself? I DO NOT KNOW what is the boundary condition of the observable universe, nor whether the initial state was "caused" by something else, nor whether it's a local manifestation of some larger, possibly "eternal" existence like a multi-dimensional bulk. Here, I'll scream it again: I DO NOT KNOW. (And neither do you or anyone else.)

I'm not "assuming" anything. Just because the initial condition is unknown, that doesn't prevent us from observing that the universe has been expanding and cooling from a hotter, denser state since some finite time in the past.

I DO NOT KNOW.

Maybe that "somewhere" is an "eternal," multi-dimensional bulk. WE DO NOT KNOW.

Okay, that's the only somewhat reasonable statement in your post, but so what?

The Planck Epoch is by definition a constant period of time (about 10E-43 seconds), so it's not getting any earlier.

The point is the known laws of physics (standard model & GR) break down before the Planck epoch. And so do our "common sense" notions of time and causality. We simply can't say anything definitive about what happened "before" that time. The "wall" is only in our current understanding.

The best we can do is suspend our common sense intuition and just follow some more abstract, generalized mathematical model which is non-singular beyond the Planck time. The brane cosmology I previously mentioned is one such model based on M-theory. (At least that's my layman's understanding.)

However, it's well accepted that this is very speculative until more supporting evidence is acquired.

So you guys would rather be open to a bunch of "i dont know" ideas from a select number of scientists going on theories, then be open to the ideas of over 1 billion people who know. How is that common sense?

You have convinced me; Allah is the answer.

= Not an atheist.

Time for you to strap that bomb to your chest then?

You guy's have convinced me even more not to rely on science.

because the fact is we don't know and neither do you

duh

I do know. And so do billions of others.

I don't pretend to know. There is no reason that humans are expected to have all the answers to the universe figured out yet. I only know that saying a God did it doesn't make any sense to me and begs the question of what made that. The simple matter is we currently have problems grasping eternity.

I think there was some confusion as to which of the two definitions of the word 'being' you are using. One is "being" as in "having a state of existence" and the other is "being" as in "a sentient entity". I thought you mean "a being" as in a creature (being) as opposed to just a "state of existing".

To get back to your OP, an eternal "state of existence" is not God... at least not what one means when they talk about gods as eternal sentient beings.

I don't know on what basis you make this statement. I don't assume everything was created from something. I believe matter could be eternal. I don't understand it. So I use words like "possibly" or "I don't know." If I don't understand it, of course I'm going to use words like "possibly" because none of us can know.

It gets back to you not understanding what words mean. Certainly a god like creature is in the realm of possibility. But I have seen no compelling reason to believe it. So, I do not have a belief in God. Its really rathar simple.

Let's try this another way.

I don't believe in fire breathing dragons. Is it possible that there were (or are) firebreathing dragons and I'm somehow missed the evidence? Yes. But for the time being, if someone asked me do I believe dragons are real, I would say, "no,... I don't believe so." But if compelling evidence came to light for dragons, my beliefs could change. But if someone said "are you an adragonist?" I would correctly say yes.

I'm refering to when you said "funny" at the idea that "You can be an atheist and give no thought to the creation of the universe." Perhaps I should have said "what you found funny above" instead of "laughing"

When you called it funny, I assumed you were laughing. My bad.

The kid doesn't assume anything of the sort. He is taught that. Kids constantly ask questions because they don't know the answers or understand how anything works. If a kid is told babies come from storks, they'll believe that until they come across better more believeable info.

I can handle the discussion. What I'm complaining about is the stream of theist poster who don't have a bare bones understanding of subjects so the entire threads become correcting them on their misunderstandings. This happens a lot in, for example, threads on evolution. A lot of creationists have no understanding of the theories and it shows when they discuss it.

Gunth, please google the logical fallacy "Argument from ignorance" and read everything you can find on it.

I mostly agree with the OP, but the Leprechaun thing is misleading, which I think is causing Jib's confusion.


OP probably is considering 1/10^8 as close to 1/10^12

The probabilities are really close despite being multiple orders of magnitude off from each other.

You could accurately say that these numbers are nearly identically, or that they are extremely far from each other. This just makes it a confusing analogy.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Flying Spaghetti monster is literally just as likely to exist as an intelligent creator.

What do you rely on?

Think about what you know and try to trace it back and you will find that you can only know that it has travelled through imaginations. You have no reason to rely on these imaginations that have wrote the Bible to have actually had any communication with God.

Would you believe me if I say I spoke to God and he said 'this'?

Would you believe someone who says they know someone who spoke to God?

Would you believe someone who says they know someone who knows someone who knows someone who read something that someone wrote about him knowing something about someone speaking to God?

I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to say, so I cannot dispute it. If you're saying that atheists agree that there is a god as you've defined it, then clearly you're wrong. I see no intelligence in the universe. I don't have to defeat it in argument because you've done nothing more then make an assertion of your belief. You've done nothing to prove point and I see no evidence that this is correct. (assuming I understand what you're trying to say... which its possible that I don't.)

??? I believe Religion exists because man has a need to understand, explain and label things. IMO, religion is a vestage of man trying to explain that which he did not understand. If I understand correctly what you're saying, you're drawing some unwarranted conclusions.