I never said there was, there is just also no objective evidence for a god. God is a concept that can't be proven.
Where is it said that the reason people don't give him credit for being a priest?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is no evidence for the 'non-existence of God'.
If anyone is proving that more then anybody, it is atheists and their repeated failures at trying to explain the origins of the universe.
Also, it's funny how Einstein receives veneration, as well as even those with lesser discoveries, but since the founder of the Big Bang theory was a priest, he is not given the same.
It just goes to show the bias of atheists for what it really is; and the conceited nature of secularized science.
I never said there was, there is just also no objective evidence for a god. God is a concept that can't be proven.
Then where did the universe come from?
You're answer is 'I do not know'.
If you do not know, why are you so in arms about the notion of God and not the universe coming from nothing?
Seriously, professed atheists are just rank troublemakers. Anti-theists in sheep clothing. There literally is no other purpose why you all do what you do.
well yes, scientists are still working out the Big Bang theory (I think, I am not at all familiar with many of the concepts surrounding this theory). And I don't think we came from nothing.
But, I am not "in arms" about the concept of a god. I just disagree with it, but religion is a large part of life. Religion has had an impact on a lot of things in society, like politics. So it's natural to want to discuss it. I object to that we're all "anti-theists". I have friends who are theists, and I don't want them to give up their faith at all. They just have a different opinion which I happen to disagree with.
How do you disagree with something in which you have no basis to do so or otherwise?
That's sort of the contradiction among many atheists.
I know a very compelling theory that attempts to explain the origins of the universe. If I had come on here and told you that, you wouldn't go about it the same way as the notion of God. You'd find it 'interesting', where with a theory on God, which I also know of, you'd say 'nope' in just the blip of a thought.
That's anti-theism.
There is no evidence for the 'non-existence of God'.
If anyone is proving that more then anybody, it is atheists and their repeated failures at trying to explain the origins of the universe.
Also, it's funny how Einstein receives veneration, as well as even those with lesser discoveries, but since the founder of the Big Bang theory was a priest, he is not given the same.
It just goes to show the bias of atheists for what it really is; and the conceited nature of secularized science.
Then where did the universe come from?
You're answer is 'I do not know'.
If you do not know, why are you so in arms about the notion of God and not the universe coming from nothing?
Seriously, professed atheists are just rank troublemakers. Anti-theists in sheep clothing. There literally is no other purpose why you all do what you do.
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
- As demonstrated by normal experience
How do you disagree with something in which you have no basis to do so or otherwise?
That's sort of the contradiction among many atheists.
I know a very compelling theory that attempts to explain the origins of the universe. If I had come on here and told you that, you wouldn't go about it the same way as the notion of God. You'd find it 'interesting', where with a theory on God, which I also know of, you'd say 'nope' in just the blip of a thought.
That's anti-theism.
If there's one thing that aggravates me, it's when people try to reap the benefits of neutrality while attacking an end they don't like.
I think the better question is:
Why does it shock you so, some people choose to not agree with something that lacks objective evidence to support it?
I don't have any quarrel with that.
The Church teaches that even an atheist can potentially be saved. It's much harder because Christ augments the soul- but it's possible, as God looks into the hearts of men.
I am fully aware that 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are in truth synonymous. This site does not make that connection, being that you can choose between the two in one's profile.
But I also know agnostic philosophy, and that it does not mesh with anti-theism. Therefore one cannot have a bias against God, at least not in the general principle of a sentient Creator.
Yes and no. An agnostic atheist does not believe in god, but admits to having no proof that he exists. A gnostic atheist claims to know for a fact that no gods exist. That is a big difference. However, people will gravitate about being called an atheist or an agnostic, even if their lack of belief is more in-line with the definition of an agnostic atheist. *shrug*
That's all just misdirection.
The textbook definition of an agnostic is one who is ignorant of the knowledge of origin.
I seriously could run laps around this all day. You're talking to somebody who once an agnostic
Do you even know that the concept of agnosticism is what dissuaded the Church from persecuting non-believers?
Why is that last bit important?
Because it shows that my definition of agnosticism is historically recognized as such.
The idea that the universe "came into being" would itself need to be substantiated before a reason for it, or a description of the method by which it happened, were to be demanded. Even then the fact that a person didn't have one would in no way imply that the other person who did have a theory (like "God did it") was on to something.
When people say "nothing existed prior to the big bang" they are just speculating. Did the supposed singularity not exist before it banged? Was there even a "then" in which something could exist or not exist (maybe there was no time "before"). Do we know for a fact that vacuum energy and virtual particles didn't do there thing before the bang? Do we even know for sure the visible universe of expanding galaxies constitutes all the mater and energy out there? We don't even know what half the mass out there is (dark matter and energy) let alone it's connection, or lack thereof, with the so called big bang. It's all the outer reaches of speculation.
I think it's about time I simply illustrate the notion of an arbitrary universe.
It was proposed by Stephen Hawking, and I'm surprised that not too many people know about it- neither believer or atheist to date has been able to recognize this theory even though there was an entire presentation on the matter.
I'll just get to it:
The universe is entirely positive and negative energy. The positive energy is matter and energy, the negative energy is the vacuum of space.
These two energies are equal and opposite- their equation is zero.
As such, the polar opposites, from infinitely negative to infinitely positive, from zero, pull at each other to produce a 'hologram' of nothing.
It's short, I know. I've become so adept at relaying this theory that it's second nature in explaining it.
Are you adept at providing a citation on which you base this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?