It's 2019, not 1519.

Kenny'sID said:

What is your logical/probable take on how it all began, starting from nothing? And please include evidence to support the claims.

Click to expand...

Science posits the big bang to explain how the universe expanded from an embryonic universe to the one we see today. How the universe came into existence is pre-big bang and lots of theories abound, none of which involve a deity.

One possibility is that 'nothing' is unstable. This instability caused a matter/anti-matter particle pair to spring into existence. This doesn't violate any physical law because the sum of these two particles is zero. Normally, these two particles instantaneously annihilate one another. All this has been reproduced at Fermilab and so is not a far-fetched idea. It actually has credibility.

Circumstances may have arisen where the matter/anti-matter particle pair did not annihilate one another and more particles came into being.

Where did the mass come from?

Nowhere because no mass was created because the particle pairs have zero mass.

We know from observation that certain matter particles can become anti-matter particles and vice versa. CERN has verified this. We also know that the conversion rates are asymmetrical and anti-matter particles are converted to matter particles faster than the reverse. This has also been verified by CERN. This creates more matter than anti-matter particles such that, when particle annihilation takes place, there is an excess of matter particles left over which become our universe.

Now, just because this is possible, it doesn't mean that it happened.

Notice that there is no need for any deity of any kind.

When the universe came into being, so did space-time.

Now, here's the thing. In our universe, an effect doesn't happen without a cause. Cause and effect are time dependent and cause always precedes effect.

Before the universe came into being, time did not exist. It is therefore entirely possible that there can be effects without a cause. In other words, there didn't need to be a cause or a causal agent for the creation of the universe. However, it has to be said that science has no idea what physical laws, if any, applied pre-universe. That said, because science doesn't know what caused the creation of the universe, it doesn't mean that god did it.

Chesterton said:

I didn't quote you accurately? All I did was click the quote button.

Click to expand...

No you didn't. After you copied the quote, you commented and there was the inaccuracy.

Aussie Pete said:

It's simple. Science does not know everything. I'm from the 50's. My dad was an aggressive atheist. I got born again at the age of 20. I already had fair idea that God was real. I had a prayer answered when I was 12 years old. It so spooked me that I decided it had to be coincidence, in spite knowing that the answer was so specific that it had to be God.
Some people see creation and yet do not see God. It is impossible for me to believe that there is no God, especially now. I know God and I have known Him for 48 years. I see evidence for a Creator all around me. Somehow other people can look at what is obvious to me and yet they come to an entirely different conclusion. You wonder how people can believe in God. I am amazed that they do not believe.
Logic and reason lead people to entirely different conclusions many times. Logic and reason are useless in many issues of life. Loyalty is often unreasonable. People support causes that are pointless. Many people believe lies to be truth and truth to be lies. If all the geniuses in the world were laid end to end, they still would not come to a conclusion. Logic and reason are vastly overrated, primarily because few people have access to all the facts. Explaining God to many people is like trying to describe the Grand Canyon to someone born blind. And that is the heart of the matter. Man suffers from spiritual blindness. Until his eyes are opened, he cannot see God or know God.

Click to expand...

Science does not know everything but that doesn't mean that god is real. A god may exists but it may be one of the thousands of gods that man has invented over the years or a god unknown to mankind rather than the god of the bible. Do you have any proof of god that would stand up to scientific scrutiny?

You had a prayer answered. How do you know that the outcome was the result of a prayer? You have known god for 48 years. How do you know this is not wishful thinking or the result of a delusion? If it was a god that was responsible, how do you know it was your god and not some other god? When you look around, you see evidence of a creator. When I look around I see the physical laws of the universe at work. I reject your god hypothesis because you have no proof which will stand up to scientific scrutiny. I'm amazed that so many people believe based upon nothing but faith - but I guess that this is what religion does to people. It replaces logic and proof with superstition. People believe lies because they don't apply logic and reason sufficiently rigidly or even at all. Man doesn't suffer from spiritual blindness, he suffers from superstitious nonsense fed to him by an entity that would rob him of his goods and demean in order to control him. Religion is a business. Nothing more and nothing less.

It sounds as though you believe in god because you want to. You cherry pick claims which you turn into facts in order to support and justify your beliefs.

durangodawood said:

Not really a fair comparison.

Christianity (or any active religion) is about so much more than the philosophical discussion: "is there a god?" What would be the point of Christians allowing atheists to derail every discussion about how to apply the Bible to daily living, or about the finer points of theology?

Atheism by contrast is just so..... small. There's no life-content there that theists could come in and disrupt.

Click to expand...

Just because you consider Atheism to be 'small' doesn't mean that Atheism isn't the more logical stance.

No life content you say? We discuss such non-life topics as how paedophiles use their church and religion to cover up their sins. We discuss how joehova's witnesses control and ruin the lives of their followers. We discuss people like peter popoff - the con-man and televangelist. Is that enough life content for you? This, for us, seems far more relevant and important compared to discussions such as: what did jesus mean when he supposedly said X?

klutedavid said:

The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2][3] and standard historical criteria has aided in reconstructing his life.[4] However, scholars differ on the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels. (wikipedia)

No one seriously questions the historicity of Jesus Christ. If you reject that Jesus Christ existed, then you can throw the school of history in the bin also.

Click to expand...

Of course people seriously question the historicity of jesus. Where have you been for the past few years? See videos by Richard Carrier and Robert Price on Youtube. People, in the past, didn't question the historicity because there was an implicit belief that jesus actually existed. Then we began to move towards an actual person about which some of the stories were made up for effect. Then we moved towards jesus being a composite of a number of actual people. We are now at the point where jesus' existence is in serious doubt because of the serious lack of evidence. After reviewing all the scientific evidence that I am able, I'd have to conclude that, in all probability,science is moving towards the conclusion that jesus never had an Earthly existence.

Aussie Pete said:

Of course, no atheist would ever do that.............. Last night I was in Emergency, awaiting a procedure that would stop and restart my heart. My friends were praying. My pulse rate was varying between 180 and 50. I was prepped and the anaesthetist was about to squirt a dose of fentanyl into my arm. The doctor looked again at the monitor, which had been alarming for hours. He said that my heart had reverted. No procedure required. I've had these kinds of experiences for 48 years. Miracles do occur. It's your loss. You will have your opportunity to explain to God why you chose to disbelieve the evidence. If evidence was water, you'd be drowning in it. I can assure you that God is not going to pat you on the head and say that it's OK.

You god is science. The science that gives us the opportunity to turn the earth into a radioactive wasteland. That produces chemical and biological weapons that maim, kill and disfigure. There is a new science text book every year, explaining why last year's "truth" is now wrong. Science has produced the technology that enables governments to track every individual and punish those who dare to disagree with the state. Billions are spent on pointless research because scientists are curious. Who needs a cure for cancer when we could prove that the Higgs particle exists or not? Your god is pathetic.

Click to expand...

People prayed for you. Much research has been done into prayer and an outcome. No link has ever been found that suggests that it produces an effect which is greater than chance.

You claim that my god, science, is pathetic, and yet, as a result, it produced machines that can monitor your heart and tell the doctor that you are ill and also tell the doctors that the intended treatment was no longer required. I also note that you are using the internet, that was developed by science, to spread your ideas.

If you are ill, you go see a doctor. To go to church to be prayed for isn't sensible and to spread such information is immoral and illogical. Man's lifespan is increasing because of science, not because he has learned to pray better.

OK, let's suppose that your god created smallpox. But it was science that eradicated it - not prayer.

Yes, Man has misused science. But that is the fault of man, not science - just like paedophillia is the fault of man, not the fault of the churches to which these evil monsters belong and protect them.

How pathetic is science now when compared to your god?

Maria Billingsley said:

I am afraid the burden is on you to prove there is no God. I am not convinced.

Click to expand...

No. For two reasons.

1. He who makes the claim provides the proof. You claim that god exists. It is therefore for you to prove.

2. For the umpteenth time, Atheists do not state that god doesn't exist. Atheist reject the Theist claim that god exists until such time as proof is provided of his existence. Thus far, no such evidence has been presented. Therefore the claim of existence is rejected.

So, do you have any proof?

BNR32FAN said:

Luckily as Christians we don’t have to prove that He exists we just have to believe that He exists.

Click to expand...

I believe that I shouldn't have to work for a living to pay the bills. I don't have to prove it. I just have to believe it.

Being a Theist doesn't excuse you from applying logic in an honest manner.

joshua 1 9 said:

Yes and proof is math. Every letter has an exact mathematical number. You need to look into Gematria and then you will see the exact mathmatical proof that you are asking for. Written entirely in Hebrew, a Torah scroll contains 304,805 letters, all of which must be duplicated precisely by a trained scribe. They make a precise duplicate by counting the letters. Then they know right away if there is a mistake.

Click to expand...

An alphabet is proof of nothing more than the fact that an alphabet exists to which you have assigned a numbering system.

Look, seriously, you need to look up the definition of proof and then get back to me.

Halbhh said:

To me, I think the only way to 'prove' an idea/theory/principle works in real life is to test it in real life, repeatedly, until it proves out repeatedly or fails.

Click to expand...

I agree - with the proviso it is done in a scientific manner.