Earth needs a creator.

But God does not need a creator.

If God does not exist in time, then why would he need a start or beginning?

Earth exists in time, and therefor it must of started somewhere.

Evolution, by the way, is so full of holes I would rather believe we all got here from aliens. By the way, its called "The Theory of Evolution". Darwin himself said In his dying days he couldn't understand why everyone was believing in his theories so much, and it was just something he put out there.

Dude your so right!! he spent years on the Galapagos islands for a vacation, not gather research, how the hell did we miss that??? thank you so much, I also forgot that our knowledge hasn't advanced in the past 125 years, how could we all be so blind. and the supposed fact that its just the super-smart Christians putting out the idea of him saying it wasn't based on fact is total BS, thank you so much for enlightening me!!

Past-tense. Needed. And not necessarily by a creator.

It is a theory, with a basis. So why would you say you'd rather believe in something that IS a hole, than something just full of them? How much more sense does that faith make? And, for fun, i'd like to hear some of these holes.

Seems to me that you just said "god needs a beginning." So, did he "start" himself? And you say evolution has holes.

And what is time? Just a man-made invention to keep track of the rising and setting of the sun. No numbers are written in the sky. Time isn't something you live in, but merely existance itself. A line has no beginning or end. Just as timelines can go on forever. And there ARE theories that say the big-bang was THE beginning of said "time." So let's just skip this altogether.

I'd like to see where you got this information. Seems warped to me.

If your faith is based on, well, faith, how is it any less rediculous to believe god was just there, than it is to believe that an infinitely small and dense point was just there? Faith is belief without proof, something that evolution, at least, does have.

You're wrong about Darwin zilla. During his time, he was twisted between his religion and science. He believed in God because he was Christian, but supported his own theories of evolution. His theories are theories after all, they're simply questioning the existence of God, not literally saying God doesn't exist. There's a difference.

When did I say that? I said God does not need a creator because he has no beginning. He exists outside of time.

Think, if there is no time, then would something have a start? The answer is no.


Will argue more later, just wanted to say that for now.

If there was no "time", the dimension its self, everything would ether exist in a most basic state or not at all. If something moves non liniarly then it operates on a completly diffrent set of laws then our dimension, so you cant say begining or end or always was, because for it there is only a now, or never.


Last Edit: Aug 14, 2007 6:15:49 GMT by Kahless™

First, this is a bunch of nonsense.

Second, it sounds to me like you are try to convince youself not me.

Third, you cant disprove Religion by stuff you think of off the top of your head. Even if it makes perfect sense to you.

I've found over the years that arguing about Religion on the Internet is a waste of time XD.

But I tell you what, if someone is willing to give me their home address I will buy a book and have it shipped to your house. A book can fit a lot more then a post.


Last Edit: Oct 3, 2007 14:33:21 GMT by 17Godzilla

That does sound dumb, but that's not what the Big Bang theory states. All it says is that all of the matter in the universe was condensed into a single point and exploded outward. Though we don't know what the universe was like before the big bang, that doesn't automatically default to a god. By the way, the big bang has been proven.



I don't know what you mean by this.



Actually, DNA is one of the simplest codes known to man. Binary code, for example, is simpler. It uses only 0's and 1's to create and infinitely complex entity/message/etc whereas DNA uses ACGT. That's Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine.

The book thing is ridiculous. What font size? Page margins? You can't just arbitrarily claim that something could fill a book of a certain size when the criteria for a book is so loose. You can take a story and make it fit in a dictionary sized book or a paperback novel sized book. It's a poor analogy.

Also, why can't DNA come about by chance? Look at all of the planets in the universe. Billions of them that harbor no life. Obviously if the odds are so astronomical, it's fitting perfectly with what evidence we have. For example, if we have a billion planets and only one has life and the chances for DNA coming about at random is 1/1 x 10⁹, then the odds are perfect. I doubt they're this simple, but essentially, randomosity works perfectly with the universe seeing as life is clearly so rare in the universe as far as we know.

So why should you believe something so complicated and intricate is an accident? Why should you believe in a baseless, contradictory, infinitely more intricate, higher being?



Who created the creator? Before you say god always existed, why can't the universe have always existed?

Besides, when I see a building, I don't think there was a builder. I think there was a multitude of builders working as a team, following plans and blueprints from even higher-ranking builders. By your logic, there MUST be a team of gods.



Planets aren't created by randomly created matter. Planets are created out of the matter from stars. If you've ever heard the phrase that people are made up of "star stuff", that's why. Earth and everything on it came from matter from a star.

Where did you read that everything fit into a baseball sized ball of matter? We have no idea how big it was. It was, essentially, infinitely dense and infinitely small seeing as the universe is, as far as we know, infinitely large. The problem is that the human mind has trouble grasping the concept of infinity. It serves no purpose and does nothing to help our survival, so we never evolved brains with the ability to explicitly understand infinity. That's what makes this so hard to believe. So where is the universe expanding? That way.



Again, who created God? If everything needs a cause, so does god. You said it yourself, so you can't weasle your way out.



Okay, first of all, the Bible has been disproven many times and never proven, so it's not a reliable source of information. You wouldn't trust ANY other book about ANYTHING for information if it had the track record the Bible did. Besides, Genesis contradicts itself horribly. I mean, it's seriously hard to believe you've even read Genesis if you're claiming it as fact.

And if God is all powerful, why does he need to rest and why does it take him more than 1 x 10^{-99999999999999} seconds to create the universe in all of it's entirety? If he's all powerful, the universe should've been instantaneous.



Okay, first of all, show me where Darwin said that about the eye. Second of all, complexity is not proof of anything but complexity. It doesn't prove a god of any sort.

Of course the orbit around the sun must be precise. There are approximately 12 (or 13, I forget) major bodies orbiting our sun (planets and dwarf planets). Only ONE has the right orbit to sustain life as we know it. It's not a miracle, it's simply odds. Not only do NONE of the other planets have the capabilities for life, but as far as we know, none of the other planets in our galaxy do. Given the sheer amount of planets that don't have the proper orbit around their respective star, it's perfectly logical to expect that at least one will. That one is ours. Why is that so hard to believe?


Last Edit: Apr 8, 2008 4:04:00 GMT by Lucifer

I miss these debates on time, life, religion, god etc. etc. Luci is missed. ><

Lucifer... that post was godly (pun not intended)

Ugh, I spent like 40 minutes writing a response for this, then my comp crashed, it basically was everything Lucifer said plus how the Law of Thermodynamics states the opposite of what you said, it actually means that all energy in the universe remains constant, it is impossible to create or destroy energy, so the winding down thing is really silly. Oh any about how you cannot imagine god, all the ingredients are there, just imagine you're a caveman, you see a fire and don't understand it so you deem it magic, you then see your tribe leader, leader + magic.

May I spring this back to life?

I believe just what mukei does - we cannot comprehend it. It's just impossible. How can you say there is a god? What proof is there, that there is a good? While at the same time, how can anything have come to be?

There is no answer, and that is the answer.

0

I'd have to agree, but I also want to know which type of athiesm you're going on about:

^{(The following is Wikipedian, although accurate.)}

For example my friend is an epistemological atheist, whereas I am a theological athiest.
------------------------------------
Practical atheism

In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view. A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism—the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."

Practical atheism can take various forms:

Absence of religious motivation—belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action;
Active exclusion of the problem of gods and religion from intellectual pursuit and practical action;
Indifference—the absence of any interest in the problems of gods and religion; or
Ignorance—lacking any idea of gods.
Historically, practical atheism was considered by some people to be associated with moral failure, willful ignorance and impiety. Those considered practical atheists were said to behave as though God, ethics and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism. According to the French Catholic philosopher Étienne Borne, "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law."


Theoretical atheism

Theoretical, or contemplative, atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assume various psychological, sociological, metaphysical, and epistemological forms.


Epistemological arguments

Epistemological atheism argues that people cannot know God or determine the existence of God. The foundation of epistemological atheism is agnosticism, which takes a variety of forms. In the philosophy of immanence, divinity is inseparable from the world itself, including a person's mind, and each person's consciousness is locked in the subject. According to this form of agnosticism, this limitation in perspective prevents any objective inference from belief in a god to assertions of its existence. The rationalistic agnosticism of Kant and the Enlightenment only accepts knowledge deduced with human rationality; this form of atheism holds that gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot be known to exist. Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know the existence of God. The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic world-view.

Other forms of atheistic argumentation that may qualify as epistemological, including logical positivism and ignosticism, assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibility of basic terms such as "God" and statements such as "God is all-powerful". Theological noncognitivism holds that the statement "God exists" does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals classify into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers A. J. Ayer and Theodore M. Drange reject both categories, stating that both camps accept "God exists" as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category.


Metaphysical arguments

Metaphysical atheism is based on metaphysical monism—the view that reality is homogeneous and indivisible. Absolute metaphysical atheists subscribe to some form of physicalism, hence they explicitly deny the existence of non-physical beings. Relative metaphysical atheists maintain an implicit denial of a particular concept of God based on the incongruity between their individual philosophies and attributes commonly applied to God, such as transcendence, a personal aspect, or unity. Examples of relative metaphysical atheism include pantheism, panentheism, and deism.


Epicurus is credited with first expounding the problem of evil. David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions: "Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"
Psychological, sociological and economical arguments
Further information: Psychology of religion, Neurotheology
Philosophers such as Ludwig Feuerbach and Sigmund Freud argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotional wants or needs. This is also a view of many Buddhists. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, influenced by the work of Feuerbach, argued that belief in God and religion are social functions, used by those in power to oppress the working class. According to Mikhail Bakunin, "the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory and practice." He reversed Voltaire's famous aphorism that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him, writing instead that "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."


Logical and evidential arguments

Logical atheism holds that the various conceptions of gods, such as the personal god of Christianity, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present deductive arguments against the existence of God, which assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, justice and mercy.

Theodicean atheists believe that the world as they experience it cannot be reconciled with the qualities commonly ascribed to God and gods by theologians. They argue that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there is evil and suffering, and where divine love is hidden from many people. A similar argument is attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.


Anthropocentric arguments

Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of gods in favor of a "higher absolute", such as humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Sartre all used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.

One of the most common criticisms of atheism has been to the contrary—that denying the existence of a just God leads to moral relativism, leaving one with no moral or ethical foundation, or renders life meaningless and miserable. Blaise Pascal argued this view in 1669.