[_ Old Earth _] matter and energy(and other fallacies of atheism)

[Featherbop]

For the atheist/evolutionists: If you don't believe in a god of any kind that created the matter and energy that make up the universe, then do you believe that matter and energy has always existed? If you believe this, how do you accept this as possible? How did the M&E always exist? If you don't believe it always existed, then how was it created?

I just have never seen an acceptable answer for this, but I can't recall seeing one at all. :-?

Please explain this fallacy. :infinity:

And please don't post using the excuse: We don't know everything yet.
Evolutionists don't allow creationists to say that as an answer.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Some hypotheses hold that even absolute dimentionless nothing isn't quite stable and energy just popped out like some sort of random electron-positron pair. The total energy of the universe still technically works out to zero I think.

While we aren't sure of precisely what happened, it's still no reason to believe any god, specifically yahweh or brahma, had to have a hand in it.

 

[Featherbop]

....we aren't sure of precisely what happened...

So you think you're close then?

____

My question is still unanswered, anyother takers?

it's still no reason to believe any god

Yes it is. You are just very biased and closeminded.

Believing in a universe not created by God creates a contradiction. The material had to be created by someone. It can't just pop out of nothing. If you say matter is eternal, its a contradiction, if you say a reaction 9of somekind created it, its a contradictionbecause the reaction had to be created by someone. Plus, noone ever observed something "popping into existance" from nothing.

Lets continue. Someone give a rational explanation of how eternal matter and energy is possible, or how matter and energy was created even though noone or nothing was there to bring it into existance.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

If you define god as anything that created the universe, then god may just be a primodial process with no more part in the universe than a spermatazoa and far less than that of a father.

So you think you're close then?

The Large Hadron Collider comes online in 2007, by 2010 we ought to understand the processes of the BBT down to about 10^-40 seconds into the universe's existence. This will also allow us to start closing the books on Dark matter among other things.

Not understanding something is not a reason to assume god must have done it. Especially as god has not been shown to have had any part in any process we do understand.

 

[Featherbop]

Yeah yeah yeah. Its always: "we'll know in 5 years." Uh, wait, make that 10." ..... "well it might be 20 before we know anything for sure."

...god has not been shown to have had any part in any process we do understand.

He hasn't been shown not to have done it either. But This is iuntestable, you knew that right?

Not understanding something is not a reason to assume god must have done it.

Of course not, why would you think that?

If you define god as anything that created the universe....

No.

_____

The idea still is stupid, yet has so many followers in the science so called area believe that a random big bang created our -obviously created by God- universe. Or maybe most scientists are at the very least, theists? Perhaps, that is one way to make a big bang believable.

But anyway, noones going to be able to explain the fallacy of creation of the universe without God, because it isn't what happened.

 

[Barbarian]

Yeah yeah yeah. Its always: "we'll know in 5 years." Uh, wait, make that 10." ..... "well it might be 20 before we know anything for sure."

Sometimes, it takes longer. Scientists in Darwin's time predicted that there must have been whales with functional legs at one time. That one took nearly 100 years to verify.

The idea still is stupid, yet has so many followers in the science so called area believe that a random big bang...

Who said "random"? It's not in the theory.

created our -obviously created by God- universe.

It could be two different ways of saying the same thing.

Or maybe most scientists are at the very least, theists?

About half of us believe in a personal God, Who cares about the world and the people living in it. And others believe in other sorts of gods.

 

[Featherbop]

Who said "random"? It's not in the theory.

So, the theory includes God then? Or are you saying that there is a reason that it "happened"?

About half of us believe in a personal God, Who cares about the world and the people in it.

Why?

And others believe in other sorts of gods.

Like what kind of god do you mean?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

NonRandom != God.
The tides don't come and go by divine mandate, they move with the earth-moon gravitational system.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Who said "random"? It's not in the theory.

So, the theory includes God then?

Nope. No scientific theory includes God. Science is too weak a method to deal with the supernatural.

Or are you saying that there is a reason that it "happened"?

All things happen for a reason. God might not be the direct reason.

Barbarian observes:
About half of us believe in a personal God, Who cares about the world and the people in it.

Why?

Faith. Why do you believe? (assuming you do)

Barbarian observes:
And others believe in other sorts of gods.

Like what kind of god do you mean?

Vedic ones, for example.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Well, it seems we've won the debate. Evolution WINS!!!!!

 

[evanman]

Well, it seems we've won the debate. Evolution WINS!!!!!

No it hasn't!

You seem to be atributing person status to the Theory of Evolution.

Could it be that Evolution is your god?

 

[Blue-Lightning]

You should keep in mind, Vorlon, that I don't always debate topics that don't interest me very much.

BL

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Well, it seems we've won the debate. Evolution WINS!!!!!

No it hasn't!

You seem to be atributing person status to the Theory of Evolution.

Could it be that Evolution is your god?

Evan: 1: Go buy yourself a sense of humor.
2: Get bent.

 

[Featherbop]

Could it be that Evolution is your god?

Of course its their god! Everybody knows that except them.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't know that many people who are confused about the difference between science and religion.

And few of them are evolutionists.

Most of the folks who think evolution is God are "intelligent design" enthusiasts.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Could it be that Evolution is your god?

Of course its their god! Everybody knows that except them.

We've already had this discussion, sophist, you're defining religion to broadly.

 

[Featherbop]

You follow evolution religiously. May not be religion in the amitted or God-requiring religion, but definately like religion at least.

and I'll define religion however I please. nyah :

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

You follow evolution religiously. May not be religion in the amitted or God-requiring religion, but definately like religion at least.

and I'll define religion however I please. nyah :

Hooray, you've given up the ability to speak rationally with all other english speakers.

 

[Featherbop]

Nope, you just don't like what I say.

 

[cubedbee]

Yes, defining words to mean whatever you would like them to mean is a good way to win a rational argument. Hooray for Featherbop! He won!