Let me prove to you that god doesn't exist. SMITE ME OH MIGHTY SLAYERRRRRRRRRRRRR
Nope, I'm still here. LOL
Are atheists less imaginative about the unknown?
by sabastious 140 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
bohm
I guess you crackheads never read the first law of thermodynamics.
actually i think most of us did, and its hardly a very polite way of putting it.
Neither energy nor matter can come from nothing.
mmm. ever heard about zero-point oscilations in space? the thing is you need to redefine your statement to be: "averaged over infinite time neither energy or matter can come from nothing" to be valid even in a laboratory setting, and thats a whole other statement. then you need to recognize you are making an extrapolation from what happends in the laboratory to what happends at "holy shit, our laws dont work at this energy levels"-scale, and suddenly you are all out of experimental evidence.
They can, however, come from one another. Matter can be used to create energy, energy can be used to create matter. Einstein had some thoughts on this. Put down the gameboy and do a bit of reading. I will wait. < humming jeopardy theme hmmm hmmm hmm hm hmmm hmm hm hmmm hmm hmm hm hmmmmmmmm hmmm hmmm hm hm>
Okay, back with us?
if you had made more than 30 posts that would definately have earned you a sarcastic remark or two...
We live in a universe of matter,
...and dark matter, and energy, and dark energy, and "that stuff which is tearing the universe apart", and singularities ala black holes, etc. etc.
which could only have come from a universe of energy. The universe of energy cannot have come from 'nothing',
what about those zero-field oscilations? all we know is nature abhor nothing, and would must rather have "something".
so it had to always exist.
cue the problem of having a time coordinate crushed in the big-bang singularity.
I know, I know, some crackhead is going to say "noo, it could have come from a universe of matter".
actually you are the only person i have heard suggest such a thing. matter, as we know it, is not stable at big-bang energy levels.
Okay, so take your pick. You have to start with one or the other. You cannot start with nothing.
evidence?
Something caused the universe of matter to be created from the universe of energy.
what is the universe of energy? i have never heard that term before...
I call that something the First Cause.
I call it Snoodles, the wonder frog.
-
sabastious
I call it Snoodles, the wonder frog.
Is it benevolent?
-Sab
-
sabastious
Nope, I'm still here. LOL
It usually takes him a day to get around to reacting to direct blasphemy and when the thousand years go by the blasphemer is already long dead.
-Sab
-
bohm
seb, it Snoodles told, where would the wonder be?
-
sabastious
seb, it Snoodles told, where would the wonder be?
Well, what do the facts show then?
-Sab
-
Mad Sweeney
Someone needs a thesaurus of derogatory terms.
-
bohm
since snoodles wisely choose not to speak and thereby preserve the wonder, this clearly show he is the wonder frog!
-
CoonDawg
In the words of Bertranm Russell:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
The onus of proof is on the theists since they are the ones claiming the existence and proof thereof of something that there is no empirical evidence of.
-
VampireDCLXV
I can see the frustration represented in that argument, where the atheist cannot "see the teapot " and is told that it can't be seen, but it must be there because such and such says so. And I am sorry for them that they cannot see it, however I and many others can see at least indirect evidence that the "teapot" exists.
Consider this: What would happen if you spoke to a bunch of geocentric astronomers in the middle ages, and told them that, instead of a teapot between earth and mars, there is a huge planet between mars and venus. It's bigger than either planet, and moreover, if astronomers turned a telelscope on it, they could see mountains and trees and rivers in very fine detail. The astronomer would say "we have studied the sky all our lives, and we cannot find any such planet. It is not there, you are a fool." Now, any heleocentric will realize that that planet between venus and mars is the Earth itself. The geocentrists, on the other hand, because of their preconceptions, will refuse to believe that such a planet exists, even though the proof that it does is visible right under their feet and all around them. Likewise, the atheist who says "I see no proof of God, he must not exist" does see proof of God's existence all around him. He just doesn't realize it, because his worldview prohibits him.
V665
