A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
Is the universe and our existence not proof enough? If it wasn’t created then how has it come into existence?

For some, no.

ETA: Maybe it has always been.

You don’t have the problem of which one. You are assuming to believe in god you must in turn believe in some religion which is nonsense.

That isn't what I said. I said the majority of people believe in some religion and that is the POV that they are coming from.

In other words it would be easier to say one is agnostic, and admit they don’t know. As I have already pointed out there is no scientific proof one way or the other.
So why jump to the conclusion there definitely isn’t?

The point is that 9 times out of 10, when I speak with someone, what they mean by creator is the one from the Abrahamic faiths and I feel comfortable saying that that isn't the creator.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

"not on something that was observed"

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

"not on something that was observed"

Taken out of context.

Bad form!

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Even in context it is a negative.

I just trimmed the excess, guess I should have just used bold to meet you high form standards.

So how does one prove that it wasn't written from observations?

originally posted by: daskakik
the majority of people believe in some religion and that is the POV that they are coming from.

True...

The problem is many believe in a religion without even realizing it.

With respect to its great contributions to society, I think it is important to make a case that science is really affecting society more like a religion now than a field of study or a resource base of useful information.

Modern Scientific beliefs are based upon a leap of faith in the big bang theory. It has become a belief system based on faith and therefore another form of religion. Scientists, like priests can explain their beliefs but the everyday people accept it all on faith. Scientists and doctors are the priests of this new religion, getting angry and crying "heresy" when anyone respectfully disagrees with them.

Has Science become a Religion

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

a reply to: Murgatroid

Yeah, them too...

ETA: ...but it isn't automatic as you like to make it seem.

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather it can only be transformed from one form or another."

Basically the universe always was in one form or another, and based on the observable world around us has always been in a state of flux, with energy changing forms throughout the universe.

The universe doesn't have a beginning, only the things within it do, the things which are naught more than different states that energy can take the form of.

We're all the universe, the universe is all us, we are both immortal and mortal, we both always existed and never have, we are nothing and everything, I am you and you are me, and we both are neither. Nothing has a beginning or end, there is simply change. Beginning and end is only an illusion caused by categorization within a limited, rather than broad perspective and context. Expand the context and perspective out far enough and the concept of a beginning or end becomes ludicrous as all things merge together and lose any real form, shape or purpose amidst the flux and change of eternity as one.

At least that's all my best educated guess.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: surfer_soul
Is the universe and our existence not proof enough? If it wasn’t created then how has it come into existence?

For some, no.

ETA: Maybe it has always been.

You don’t have the problem of which one. You are assuming to believe in god you must in turn believe in some religion which is nonsense.

That isn't what I said. I said the majority of people believe in some religion and that is the POV that they are coming from.

In other words it would be easier to say one is agnostic, and admit they don’t know. As I have already pointed out there is no scientific proof one way or the other.
So why jump to the conclusion there definitely isn’t?

The point is that 9 times out of 10, when I speak with someone, what they mean by creator is the one from the Abrahamic faiths and I feel comfortable saying that that isn't the creator.

But there is a great deal of scientific evidence for the Big Bang and the creation of the known universe, but I like your thinking here, because we must inevitably ask what caused the Big Bang then or what was before that? And that’s where our scientific enquiry must end. But our inate logic tells us we don’t get something from nothing, so there could be an eternal cycle of sorts or indeed the whole thing could be a complex simulation where things are only created as they they are required to exist. Going some way to explain Scrodingers cat experiment...
indeed within the realms of the infinite anything is possible, and by suggesting it has always been you are implying the infinite.
That is what we are dealing with, the timeless, boundless, realms of possibilities which we finite creatures can’t possibly fully comprehend. Yet that is also the beauty and wonder of it all.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Even in context it is a negative.

I just trimmed the excess, guess I should have just used bold to meet you high form standards.

So how does one prove that it wasn't written from observations?

No, it isn't a negative at all!

I didn't ask one to prove that it wasn't written from observations.


I asked:
"So does anyone have proof that ancient scripture is purely based on man's imagination, and not on something that was observed or not?"



Are you suggesting that it CAN'T be proved that someone committed suicide and WASN'T murdered either??

Same principle...

a reply to: surfer_soul

I like how Puppylove explained it above.

Something from nothing is not really the argument being made by science.

a reply to: daskakik

I like how Puppylove explained it above.

Yeah me too

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Honestly, I just have to read the tower of babel story and know that it didn't happen as told. The tower almost reached heaven so god had to magically mess with peoples tongues?

So there is that. Is that proof to you? It might be but it isn't scientific proof because you can't prove a negative.

Are you suggesting that it CAN'T be proved that someone committed suicide and WASN'T murdered either??

Same principle...

You can't if all you have left are stories of what happened and no way to examine the evidence.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
Quite a bit more logic than the universe popping into existence and creating itself from nothing...
Theists don’t hate science, many scientists believe in god. Believing in god doesn’t mean you have to believe in any or all of the doctrines of a particular religion. Or even believe in religion at all. One of the fundamental principles of science is you don’t get something from nothing, so why shouldn’t scientists believe in an ultimate creator?
I can fully understand someone wishing to reject religion. I don’t follow any myself. I would agree with someone who said we can’t know or understand anything about god or a creator, and I would understand the position of someone who said we can’t know one way or the other. As with the agnostic. But what I don’t get is the person who says no, there is definitely no creator. As with the atheist, when it can’t be scientifically proven one way or the other. Now that I find suspicious..

Sorry, but most atheists don't believe that something comes from nothing either. It's one of the oldest apologetic arguments in the book. Nobody really knows what caused the universe. You say it's god. I say it's something else. You break your own rules by saying that god exists, but comes from nothing, so why even use that as an argument? Something can't come from nothing, yet god is just there.. out of nowhere... from nothing... If an infinitely complex being can just randomly happen to always exist, then so can the universe. In fact that sounds far more likley.

And as usual you don't know what an agnostic atheist is. You perpetuate the false narrative that agnostic is an in between position, but it's not. It's the opposite of GNOSTIC, which means having KNOWLEDGE. The vast majority of atheists don't say there absolutely is no god. Atheists LACK belief in god because there is no testable evidence. It's pretty simple.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
So does anyone have proof that ancient scripture is purely based on man's imagination, and not on something that was observed or not?

Do you have any proof that it is based on reality? That is what matters. If you can't prove them accurate, I have no reason to believe them.

Completely beside the point...

Did I observe the mouse or imagine it?

The way you describe the mouse is how I will determine if you made it up or not. I use critical thinking. If it contradicts with science, reality or things we know to be true about the world, or invokes magic I can logically deduce that it was made up. If it's a normal story about a mouse running around in a field, doing mouse things, then I might consider it. Humans write fiction. They've been doing it for thousands of years. One can easily compare fictional concepts and pick them out of stories to understand they are not true. That's why using scrutiny on ancient stories and texts is very important. Otherwise you just run around believing any old thing.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Honestly, I just have to read the tower of babel story and know that it didn't happen as told. The tower almost reached heaven so god had to magically mess with peoples tongues?

So there is that. Is that proof to you? It might be but it isn't scientific proof because you can't prove a negative.

I made no suggestion that anything happened as told.

Let's say it DID NOT happen as told. Ok?
Does that automatically mean that the story is based purely on imagination and ultimately made up bull#?
Or, is it possible that an event was in fact actually observed and written about? Is it possible that the way it was written was the best way to describe or explain that event at the time?
Does a loss in translation make it imagination and not an observation?

originally posted by: surfer_soul
This is why I find atheists as abhorrent as the most extreme religious cultists. It’s nothing but blind faith in that which they desire to be true

I would be an Atheist too if I had that much faith...

Atheism is no different from any other religious doctrine, it is believed totally by faith.

How about the new atheism of our day? I wish I could report otherwise, but it has all the hallmarks of a stealth religion...

Atheism as a Stealth Religion

Ironically, most atheists are disgusted with Christianity because atheists claim Christianity requires “blind faith” or “blind trust.” But by the very definition of the name they carry, atheists in fact are the ones who have based their beliefs on the absence of evidence.

Atheists are a people “without a belief in theism” not because they have disproved the existence of God with evidence, but rather because they claim there is an absence of evidence for God. They believe there is no God because they cannot see any evidence of God. Atheists trust there is no God not because of what they see, but because of what they cannot see. Their conviction stems from things not seen.

The Blind Faith of Atheism

a reply to: Ruiner1978

If it didn't happen as told then they are not communicating what was observed and therefore not proof of anything.

For example, I see the sun rise and give us light. That is observed but saying that it is a sentient being that created us and that might not come back with its light unless we sacrifice something to it is made up BS. Seeing the sun rise doesn't make the made up BS part true.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
So does anyone have proof that ancient scripture is purely based on man's imagination, and not on something that was observed or not?

I use critical thinking.

No offence, but it seems to me that you don't.
You have a very blinkered view, shortsighted and in black and white.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Something being true or not true is, by definition, black or white.

Reality is that which exists despite oneself and one's faulty ability to perceive it in the limited capacity we can. The only way one could truly know what's true is to be omniscient. As faulty human beings with a limited ability to perceive and understand we are limited at best to educated guesses based upon observed and recorded data. It's impossible to know anything, only to make the best guess based on what seems most likely to be true based upon the evidence presented.

Is why I get so irritated when people try to insist reality as they interpret it is the one true reality and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. No one really knows, we're really all a bunch of monkeys flinging poo in the hopes we hit something worthwhile. Though it is true some monkeys fling poo better than others. In the end though even our best guesses are likely still just crap on the wall in the grand scheme of things.