well, you determined everything has a cause, then what caused your "first cause". If something caused god, it really isnt much of a god anymore, and definately not the one god. this is psuedo science, religion wrapped up in a thin foil layer of science.
this is good, a nice level headed rebuttal. too bad you will never get a rebuttal more advanced than "yer stoopid, jesus iz my homeslice, we didn't cum frum no steenkin monkeez".
Octopusonfire: my point is, the individual must make up their own mind, or else what people believe makes the world go around turns into a popularity contest decided by who raised you. I belive in the principles of science, dont assume something is right becuase it seems that way, dont make claims you can back up, and if you dont know why something happens dont just make it up, its okay to not know everything, as long as you admit what you dont know, explain your rationale, and be willing change your mind
hmm, supposed to say im an atheist offended by this, but just becuase someone does, or does not agree with you, that does not mean they do or do not have a f'ing clue what they are talking about. which is the real point people should be taking from these 2 ytmnd's
People dont need to believe ONE OR the OTHER.
there is no reason you can't believe that god created an entirely orderly universe, and presumably he has never intervened in it because he obviously knew what was going to happen when he made it? studying the natural world, and believing in what you see does not negate god, it only places restrictions on when he might have last intervened
why no open minded atheist posts? maybe because this is a terrible slander of accepted facts. Atheists most often rely on arguments which can be verified AND contested, this is not an attempt to contest it, this is poo flinging, the idea that you can say that intelectualizing about god and the origin of the universe is to deny god is horsesh*t, using your first assumption and feelings to describe the worlds is bull
five'd for leaving religous or anti-religous rhetoric out...though simplifications such as these only provide ammo to those foolish enough to let their intuitions guide them
come from nothing as we know it, it must have come from another form of space time which allows spontanious generation, which seems likely to be behind a singularity somewhere in our past, which means it is virtually irrelevent because all information is lost in singularity, because any given singularity is apparently indistinguishable from the next, and because anything within it must pass through infinate time to exit, it is only in the eyes of an external observer that 'time' ever changes.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that all this something came from "nothing"....in all likely hood the big bang was either a singularity, which means that all characteristics of all matter before the big bang is irrelevent, as it all became homegenous, or the big bang was a slight case of bad aim of a previous big crunch....that or you could say that our something came from the collision of two p-branes, and really, who the f knows what those were like....but i digress, something as we know it doesnt
gobblock's recent comments: