Okay ATHEISTS <rolls sleaves>

Can you create anything without a point of reference? NO. Oh, you can? Create a color not using any of the other colors. Can't do it can you. So, there has to be a God. CHECKMATE! Slam dunk! We rock...We roll...Them Goddies got control! Go Goddies it's your birthday...Go Goddies it's your birthday.

 

Then who created God?

...and which "god" created,
for sure now,
was it the baptist god,muslim god,zues(ect)??

 

We can get into which God is God and all the God and Goddess stuff and why Bob Saget works blue yet does that awful show with the twins some other time. Right now I'd like someone to refute my goodies. MY GOODIES MY GOODIES

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

If you have goodies,you better share and they better be of the chocolate variety, for me to have wasted my time reading this BS.

 

How is it BS? MEOW! Atheist girl! MEOW! Here's how it works. You explain to me how we create a concept without reference. It's IMPOSSIBLE! Therefore God exists.

 

By that logic you should be able to explain how "God" came to be..
So WHO created god?
...Oh ,no answer?
That's cause its nonsensical BS. With some extra inebriated sounding rambling, thrown in.(MEOW?)
fun fun.

Where are th goodies?

 

WOW Poralguy your smart make believe must be real cause we can imagine it. i didnt waste a min. of my life reading this.

 

Hey way to dodge answers guys. Good work. Who created God...Nice comeback. Never heard that one before. That's the philosophical religious equivalent of "Your Mama". Either disprove me or visit other threads. Thanks and good morning.

 

Oh, and God is infinite. You see I can't create infinity because I have ... DRUMROLL ... Reference. Oh, I'll send you some E goodies as well.

 

Sunyata answer the phone...It's the Dalai Lama. He's trying to tell you learn how to spell "Portalguy" before you try to debate me.

 

Oh hun,
You seem VERY confused.You see it wasn't a "your mama style come back"
It was logic.

How is "god infinite" anymore than existance?How does one need a creator and the other just come to be?Why would th all infinite GOD you speak of have the magical super powers to create all existance --if god just came to be,just existed..and if GOD just existed,than WHY couldn't existance itself ,have just came to be as such.

You see,that is logic. It is really quite simple and basic ,too

Your "refrence" only confirms my hold on agnosticism.

Get a little stronger in your faith,or at least a bit more cohernet before you bait atheists with BS.
...
...but,then you probably wouldn't need to if you did,huh?

 

Yeah, this argument has been made before, and it's completely absurd, it's the watchmaker one.

Do you know why it's absurd? Because it says that the Universe is too complicated to not have been created. But the CREATOR of that Universe is somehow able to not have been created. Surely the creator is more complicated than the creation? It's just trying to explain things with superstition, crops gone bad? Well obviously there's a perfectly sensible explanation...a witch did it.

 

Okay, I don't know how or why this thread turned into something besides what I asked. The maker. Who made God. BLAH BLAH BLAH. READ THE STATEMENT. Point of reference people. Man...Aren't all the good scientists supposed to be Atheists? I know you guys can't be THIS slow. Oh, and nice boots Hellfire.

 

well i think you have just defined the problem with religion. basicly religion has no point of reference.

nice try

 

"Yellow and blue have to be blended together to create the colour green, so god must exist!"

That's the most adorably naive argument I've ever come across. And I've been debating theists for decades.

Say it again! Say it again! This is fun!!

Which came first, the chicken or the invisible, omniscient, ancient middle eastern book-writing deity?

Is there any way to be sure that there were NOT green chickens prior to their being yellow, blue, and eggs? Of course not. My advice is to be humble regarding these matters. To imagine oneself capable of discerning with any degree of certainty the existence of immaterial entities is to attach the god concept to oneself.

I think that theism is for people who are afraid of reality and need an escape to a magical world where they are safe and loved unconditionally. It's a perfectly understandable urge, but I'm glad it's been waning among educated adults over the past few centuries, as our understanding of science increases. I think it's been holdng us back.

Peacelove,
Aldousage

 

You're argument is bizarre, and has been refuted. You say you can't create anything without a point of reference, but 'god' is infinite, therefore, by definition, you must believe it is possible to create something without a point of reference. Ergo, you pull your own argument apart.

 

God isn't just the watchmaker. (S)he's part of the watch. And you call it an argument?

 

Pick your cosmology. All of them have the same logical problem. You have to start with something which is axiomatic, a First Cause.

For the author of the OP, it's God. Fine, if you want to call it that. What doesn't follow from the label, however, is all the anthropomorphic and supernatural traits attributed to the Judeo/Christian God, and the superstitious nonsense surrounding belief in God as creator, arbiter of good, and heavenly father. You could just as easily give all those attributes to Thor or Zeus. Do you believe in them too? Why not? If not, then you are an atheist with respect to Thor and Zeus. Fine. We are atheists with respect to them too. We just go one step further and refute your God too. You are simply an atheist with one more God to refute.

For the modern astrophysicist, the axiom is that there must be some cosmic foam in which some perturbation or fluctuation produced our particular universe. That was the First Cause in that cosmology. With our universe's birth came all matter/energy and the physical forces, and what set into motion the path which led to where we find the universe today is the Big Bang. How and why are questions no one can ever answer, because physics breaks down when trying to understand the Big Bang in reverse. Physics breaks down when traveling backwards in space-time trying to understand how the universe came to be as it is today, but it happens before we can quite make it back to the Big Bang itself. Thus, what happened before that is beyond our event horizon and is subject only to speculation, and not observation.

The latter cosmology is subject to empirical study and the scientific method. It is dynamic and changing, and is always provisional. Scientists studying it are always willing to abandon their hypotheses which turn out not to agree with the observed evidence, and they revise their hypotheses or come up with new ones altogether and set about to test them and falsify them. Keep doing that and you learn more and more about how the universe works.

Compare a modern science-based cosmology to "Goddidit." Goddidit is static, dogmatic, and utterly impervious to empirical study and rational argument. It is not for the thinking person. It is for the sheep who happily surrenders his mind and intellect to dogma and church leaders who apply their own subjective interpretations to ancient texts in order to gain and/or maintain their power and influence over their flocks. It is happy to answer tough questions with the rhetorical "The Lord works in mysterious ways."

Hmmm...the choice seems rather simple for me. I would rather know than believe. I choose reason over faith.

 

Except faith in reason and science.