There is no Creation Debate

[Not_By_Chance]

So, "nothingness" doesn't have any properties, then?
Then how come you can invoke it as if it IS a thing?

It seems to me that the "nothingness" you speak of does not exist by definition. Correct?

If that is the case, then your statements about "nothing from nothing, not something" are completely meaningless.

If that is not the case, then "nothingess" indeed HAS properties, which would contradict your statement in the above post.

Either way, you loose.

I think the point Hieronymus is trying to make is that nothing actually is nothing at all. It is, according to Aristotles' famous remark, "What rocks dream about." So, by definition, nothing cannot have any properties and cannot be the cause of any effect. Hieronymus does not loose [sic] anything - all he has done is point out that the Atheistic world view does not have any idea for how the universe could have come into being without a deity and I don't care how loud people like Stephen Hawking and others like him want to shout otherwise. He may be a genius, but this is beyond even his power of reasoning and do you know why? The answer is in the Bible: Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." or as it says in another part of the New Testament, 2Ti 3:7 "[They are] always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth."

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Note 1. the belief in the existence of a god or gods,

Of course, but that doesn't negate item 3 that I pointed out to you and just goes to show that Atheists are in complete denial of what their own faith actually is.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It's a pity that not all scientists realise that when they are coming out with their wild theories and speculations about how everything came to be without the supernatural.

Every scientific discovery has had a natural explanation. If you hate science so much, why do you use the internet? Or is it just science that demonstrates facts that threaten your beliefs that you don't like?

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course, but that doesn't negate item 3 that I pointed out to you and just goes to show that Atheists are in complete denial of what their own faith actually is.

You are in denial of what religion actually is.

 

[expos4ever]

Name one good reason to believe something to be true if it is not observable, testable, verifiable and falsifiable?

I suggest that the phenomena of consciousness - the inner world of subjective sensation we all (presumably) experience - does not meet the criteria of being "testable", at least not in a "public" sense. Putting it another way, you cannot possible devise a test that would determine that another person has the same "experience" of seeing red as you do.

And yet we all believe that other people have the same (or nearly the same) inner subjective experiences as we do. And we certainly do not deny the reality of this inner world of subjective experience simply because it cannot be objectively verified.

 

[expos4ever]

Time for that old thing again....

If atheism is a "religion", then ...
- "off" is a TV channel
- "bald" is a hair style
- "barefoot" is a type of shoe
- "healthy" is a desease
- "naked" is a type of clothing
- "silence" is a sound
- "blind" is a type of sight
- .................

Agree. creationists only add to their already well-sullied reputation when they employ this rhetoric of calling atheism a "religion".

 

[The Cadet]

If it's not a belief thing as many Atheists claim, then what do Atheists believe? They must believe in something, so what is it?

I believe a lot of things. I believe Undertale is the best game that came out in 2015 and reasonably the best game of the decade so far. I believe @Laury loves me. I believe that the earth is an oblate spheroid traveling around a yellow dwarf star. I believe lots of things. But my atheism is not about what I believe. My atheism simply means that I do not believe in any form of god. That's it. All my other beliefs are completely independent. Atheism is simply a negative statement of position on one specific claim.

Whatever the answer, it's got to be a faith-based belief, without any non-contentious evidence to support it and therefore effectively a religious belief.

If you can show me that I believe anything beyond rational first principles and axioms (i.e. the framework needed to get past hard solipsism) on faith, then you know what I'll do? I'll stop believing in it. Because at that point, I have run out of reasons to believe in it.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Atheism is simply a negative statement of position on one specific claim.

No it's not.
athe·ism / Ñ 'eITiIzJm; NAmE Ñ / noun the belief that God does not exist [emphasis added]
OPP theism
athe·ist / Ñ 'eITiIst; NAmE Ñ / noun a person who believes that God does not exist [emphasis added]

That seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

f you can show me that I believe anything beyond rational first principles and axioms

Therein lies the problem. When people reject God, they have to come up with all sorts of ideas to replace Him. The trouble is, secularists can't agree on what they believe and some are even honest enough to candidly admit that much of it doesn't make sense anyway.

 

[dad]

The scientific method is a tool to obtain knowledge and objective truths.

False it is a tool to avoid truth and deny truth and mock truth. The deception comes in taking a little truth, and then trying to add lies, such as how they reach conclusions about origins. The only truth they can arrive at is in the present nature. Even here, they are a danger to life of earth, with pollution, womd etc.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You are in denial of what religion actually is.

As I said before, it can be any of the things I listed previously.

 

[dad]

The only fail here has been from the creationists. As the title of the thread tells you there is no debate. The creationist side lost over one hundred years ago.

There is debate. Not over truth or creation though. The debate is over the fanatical ignorance and antichrist philosophy and spirit that is science today, especially as demonstrated by some of it's zealots here.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Every scientific discovery has had a natural explanation. If you hate science so much, why do you use the internet? Or is it just science that demonstrates facts that threaten your beliefs that you don't like?

Whatever gives you the idea that I hate science? It was my favourite and strongest subject at school. I think science when properly used is brilliant, but what I do object to is the pseudo science that masquerades as science and presents all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas as if they were proven facts. You can't disprove God or disprove that He created everything by trying to make out that it is unscientific to have that view; it's just as unscientific (more so, I would say) to believe that the universe sprang into existence all on its own from nothing or that life came from non-living chemicals without any divine intervention. So no, I don't have any worries about real science threatening my beliefs - in fact, the more I learn about this remarkable universe, the more I am convinced that it had to come from a being with supreme intelligence and power to match.

 

[The Cadet]

No it's not.

Um, hi, when we're talking about my beliefs, what is more important - the way I define my beliefs, or the definition you draw from an outside source? You won't find very many atheists who adhere to that given definition, and as such it's not a very useful one when talking about what atheism is. I simply lack belief in a god.

Therein lies the problem.

What, within the claim of philosophical first principles? I'm sorry, but these are the same assumptions you make - things without which none of us could possibly function. The universe exists. Our senses provide accurate information most of the time. They are necessary to have any understanding of reality. Without them, you simply cannot function.

When people reject God, they have to come up with all sorts of ideas to replace Him.

...So we can safely add philosophy to the list of subjects you have very little knowledge of? The concept of "axioms" and "first principles" does not come from Atheists. They originally come from the greeks, and were developed by philosophers throughout the ages - many of them Christians. And it's not something you don't need if you have god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is debate. Not over truth or creation though. The debate is over the fanatical ignorance and antichrist philosophy and spirit that is science today, especially as demonstrated by some of it's zealots here.

Where has that ever been shown? Now I have seen fanatical ignorance on the parts of many creationists, but never the other way around. I would call a fanatic someone that would want to harm their religion rather than admitting to facts that are supported by observation and experimentation. Sooner or later they will be left with nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Therein lies the problem. When people reject God, they have to come up with all sorts of ideas to replace Him.

Like what?

The trouble is, secularists can't agree on what they believe and some are even honest enough to candidly admit that much of it doesn't make sense anyway.

Who says that?

 

[Loudmouth]

False it is a tool to avoid truth and deny truth and mock truth.

You are the only one who has to avoid facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

As I said before, it can be any of the things I listed previously.

Why is it so important to you that atheism be a religion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatever gives you the idea that I hate science? It was my favourite and strongest subject at school. I think science when properly used is brilliant, but what I do object to is the pseudo science that masquerades as science and presents all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas as if they were proven facts. You can't disprove God or disprove that He created everything by trying to make out that it is unscientific to have that view; it's just as unscientific (more so, I would say) to believe that the universe sprang into existence all on its own from nothing or that life came from non-living chemicals without any divine intervention. So no, I don't have any worries about real science threatening my beliefs - in fact, the more I learn about this remarkable universe, the more I am convinced that it had to come from a being with supreme intelligence and power to match.

No one has tried to disprove God. Now your particular version of God may have been disproved, but that does not mean God himself has been disproved. The idea that the theory of evolution is an attack on God is a mistake that many creationists make. It is at the worst only an attack on their failed version of God. And how the universe started is still not known. What happened in the first fraction of a second and what caused it it not understood yet. But "I don't know yet" has never been a reason to invoke a God. And abiogenesis is a problem that will be probably solved in the next ten to twenty years. Many of the problems of abiogenesis have been solved, just not all of them yet.

 

[dad]

If the evidence were consistent with your dogmatic beliefs, you would have no problems citing them as support.

The fact that you have to invent excuses to ignore the evidence is the very best indication that the evidence contradicts your beliefs.

Try not to post gibberish and spam.