Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

An unexplained Higher Power. wrote:

We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence.

You need to read up on quantum mechanics. Particles occur from nothing all the time. The Casimir effect for one.

Thus contradicting the law of conservation of mass, damn, science is hard.

You can't simply assert that God exists. This has to be demonstrated. This presupposes the premise without actually proving the premise. Without evidence, any claim is as good as any other. You can't just pile on traits and call it God. I personally think Joe Pesci created the universe. How do you know that the universe hasn't simply just always existed in one form or another?

Says no one. You're watching first hand someone trying to twist the teachings of Christianity to reconcile his belief system to science. His explanation is no where in the bible or the teachings of Christianity.

I could get on board with a Joe Pesci god

Speaking of Joe Pesci, here's a great bit by George Carlin:

Stagger Lee wrote:

How do you know that the universe hasn't simply just always existed in one form or another?

That would contradict the big bang theory.

Because... wrote:

Stagger Lee wrote:

How do you know that the universe hasn't simply just always existed in one form or another?

That would contradict the big bang theory.

And therein lies the force of Kalam. There has to be a first cause because an infinite regress of causes is a flagrant violation of Occam's Razor. But the first cause must be eternal and/or timeless. Before the discovery of the Big Bang you might have:

Christian: Who made the universe? How did it get there?

Atheist: Who made God how did He get there?

Christian: God was "always there". He is timeless and eternal.

Atheist: Yup, and so is the universe. So why create an extra entity? It's simpler to believe in just an eternal universe.

But the Big Bang took that last response away. Now atheists typically retort that the universe was uncaused, when they're not too busy constructing new models that predict an infinite universe.

Bladdy blah wrote:

Because... wrote:

That would contradict the big bang theory.

And therein lies the force of Kalam. There has to be a first cause because an infinite regress of causes is a flagrant violation of Occam's Razor. But the first cause must be eternal and/or timeless. Before the discovery of the Big Bang you might have:

Christian: Who made the universe? How did it get there?

Atheist: Who made God how did He get there?

Christian: God was "always there". He is timeless and eternal.

Atheist: Yup, and so is the universe. So why create an extra entity? It's simpler to believe in just an eternal universe.

But the Big Bang took that last response away. Now atheists typically retort that the universe was uncaused, when they're not too busy constructing new models that predict an infinite universe.

No you got it all wrong. The Big Bang Theory says the universe is NOT timeless. Time began at the Big Bang, there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. To say the universe always existed in any form is a contradiction of this.

Bladdy blah wrote:

Because... wrote:

That would contradict the big bang theory.

And therein lies the force of Kalam. There has to be a first cause because an infinite regress of causes is a flagrant violation of Occam's Razor. But the first cause must be eternal and/or timeless. Before the discovery of the Big Bang you might have:

Christian: Who made the universe? How did it get there?

Atheist: Who made God how did He get there?

Christian: God was "always there". He is timeless and eternal.

Atheist: Yup, and so is the universe. So why create an extra entity? It's simpler to believe in just an eternal universe.

But the Big Bang took that last response away. Now atheists typically retort that the universe was uncaused, when they're not too busy constructing new models that predict an infinite universe.

It really didn't. The Big Bang Theory is about the expansion of the Universe from a point of no volume to the expanding Universe we observe today. The Universe could have very well created itself out of nothing, not unlike how we observe particles that appear out of nowhere.

Bladdy blah wrote:

Because... wrote:

That would contradict the big bang theory.

And therein lies the force of Kalam. There has to be a first cause because an infinite regress of causes is a flagrant violation of Occam's Razor. But the first cause must be eternal and/or timeless. Before the discovery of the Big Bang you might have:

Christian: Who made the universe? How did it get there?

Atheist: Who made God how did He get there?

Christian: God was "always there". He is timeless and eternal.

Atheist: Yup, and so is the universe. So why create an extra entity? It's simpler to believe in just an eternal universe.

But the Big Bang took that last response away. Now atheists typically retort that the universe was uncaused, when they're not too busy constructing new models that predict an infinite universe.

No ones claiming they know the origins of the universe. What atheists claim is that no one knows the origin in the universe, including all the humans over the last few thousand years that made up 7,000 religions trying to explain it. These are man made stories, just like the three little pigs, Santa Claus, and Bambi.

I don't blame people then for making up religions to explain their existence. But I am critical of people today that in the face of hard evidence disproving it, still believe. Two of the top 3 GOP candidates are running on the religious platform. Imagine Obama made decisions catering to the 3 little pigs? Conservatives would be having a seizure.

I can understand believing in a nebulous extremely vague creator as described by several posters. But the issue is that religion takes that vague concept and makes it extremely specific based on man-made stories and biased beliefs. And of course these beliefs are constantly changing. Just look at the 6000 different sects of Christianity all derived from a common source. Which one is right?

If there truly was a god, then we wouldn't need religion.

It's easier just to say I don't know, but I'll be honest to myself and keep looking.

Wrong. There are no particles that "appear out of nowhere". They are created from other particles. By contrast, the universe really was created out of nothing. There was nothing "before" it, and something after. That's completely different.

Correct. Particles have been shown to appear from quantum foam. Which is not "nothing".

But atheists can keep on bleating about how theists fail to provide proof. Once someone proves that mass can arise from literally nothing, I'll believe the universe can exist uncaused.

As a former atheist, I can certainly appreciate the arguments. And no, the term "atheist" has not lost its negative connotation. The New Atheists are as irritating to me now and Christian fundamentalists screeching at me from college campuses were 25 years ago.

Western religion is founded on a ritual of human sacrifice, cannibalism and sometimes vampirism too.

Religion is just a cultural marker, it's no different than the food you eat, the type of clothing you wear, or the language that you speak.

Would you be shocked to find out that the Big Bang Theory was first formulated by a Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre?:

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

Before you discredit him, realize that he also held a PhD in physics from MIT.

To all the atheists wrote:

Would you be shocked to find out that the Big Bang Theory was first formulated by a Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre?:

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

Before you discredit him, realize that he also held a PhD in physics from MIT.

No, we're not shocked at all. This is the type of well known fact of which all educated people are well aware. I don't know if your point was that it took a religious epiphany to come up with the big bang theory, but if so, it didn't. It was developed from observation of the redshift of receding galaxies - in part. But if you want to say that the big bang theory is not complete - that is, it does not explain everything, as Newton's theory of gravitation did not explain everything, so along came Einstein, who took it a step further, but more work still needs to be done - you would be right. Which is why scientists continue to work on the problems like gravity and the origins and fate of the universe, rather than putting their faith in what is already written as, I don't know, gospel.

"That ever-existing thing is what "YOU" call God"

If you have a personal definition of god, well that's nice.

The god in most religion is a some kind of persona who judges.

I declare since there is no evidence that god exists, then god never existed

To all the atheists wrote:

Would you be shocked to find out that the Big Bang Theory was first formulated by a Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lemaitre?:

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

Before you discredit him, realize that he also held a PhD in physics from MIT.

So? Plenty of well-educated and smart people believe in god. It doesn't mean that god exists.