• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE

DrewPaul said:
No more a cop out than, "Insert Nature here" Neither is actually a cop out because one or the other is true.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep telling this outright lie? Atheists say that "we don't know" what there was prior to the Big Bang. Please quit lying.
 

Same old repetition as before. For nine months now. *YAWN*
 

See post #3827.
 
Not knowing about something doesn't mean it is possible any more than it means it is impossible
Logical fallacies don't equate to evidence for God(s)
But how about this you prove that God(s) are not impossible and I will admit they are possible until then the possibility/impossibility of God(s) remains unknown
 
How is it possible the cause of the universe was neither intended or unintended or was both? Unless you can prove otherwise I'll assume one of them is true and therefore possible.
 
DrewPaul said:
How is it possible the cause of the universe was neither intended or unintended or was both? Unless you can prove otherwise I'll assume one of them is true and therefore possible.
Click to expand...

We know that there is nature. There is not an iota of evidence for a "Creator". What do you not understand about this? Why do you keep saying that the cause of the universe was "intended" when there is no evidence that such is the case?
 
DrewPaul said:
How is it possible the cause of the universe was neither intended or unintended or was both? Unless you can prove otherwise I'll assume one of them is true and therefore possible.
Click to expand...
Agreed one of those is true but that doesn't mean both are possible, the possibility is unknown
 
DrewPaul said:
Its thought that even black holes will eventually dissolve. Scientists don't believe there is enough matter to pull it all back together.



No more a cop out than, "Insert Nature here" Neither is actually a cop out because one or the other is true.
Click to expand...
When I say GI’d” I mean the Judeo Christian god concept.
 
Paradoxical said:
When I say GI’d” I mean the Judeo Christian god concept.
Click to expand...
It's not a cop out to millions who have gone out and provided food, clothing, medicine, shelter and education to the armpits of the world. Or the hundreds of hospitals and hospices and woman's shelters run under the banner of religion. Lets not forget the religious groups who are taking in the immigrants streaming over the border. My wife in the name of Jesus goes every week to feed the homeless.
 
I think you misunderstood me. When I refer to God” when discussing whether or not He, It created all that is, I refer to the god of the Bible. When one asserts that the Bible God did it That is the God I find the least plausible. If one wants to say there is some intelligence that could have created the universe that is one of two possibilities which are that no God did it or that A god did it.
 
Human beings are unable to "create" anything. Referring to an entity that can, places that entity in the category of a godlike entity. When humans develop a relationship to that entity it only makes sense to assign to it a description that transcends that of human being.
 

“....to assign to it a description.....”
And there you have it! Since the entity is imaginary, totally “made up” by humans, they can then “assign” any trait that they want to it, and who could prove otherwise. Maybe you are learning that it’s all just a figment of imagination.
 
I fall into a Creator intentionally caused the universe. Beyond that is theological. Theism is the belief a Creator exists, religion and theology are beliefs about the nature of the Creator.
 
DrewPaul said:
I fall into a Creator intentionally caused the universe. Beyond that is theological. Theism is the belief a Creator exists, religion and theology are beliefs about the nature of the Creator.
Click to expand...

They at least have “beliefs about the nature of the Creator”. I suspect that you do also, but you are too afraid to discussit. Why? Because it might undercut your entire narrative about your imaginary entity?
 
watsup said:
They at least have “beliefs about the nature of the Creator”. I suspect that you do also, but you are too afraid to discussit. Why? Because it might undercut your entire narrative about your imaginary entity?
Click to expand...
A Creator cannot be regarded as imaginary if HE can be discussed at all. I suspect that many do not wish to discuss such things as to do so might undercut their dogmatic affiliation. Good such examples include: Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, Muslims...
 

Or perhaps YOUR dogmatic affiliation! Which is what?
 
watsup said:
Or perhaps YOUR dogmatic affiliation! Which is what?
Click to expand...
I know that I'm not perfect; however, I'm rather sure that I willing discuss anything and don't need a particular "denomination" to back me up ---- just my Bible. The same cannot be said of those I mentioned.
 
Have you ever heard of "red shift"? Yes there is scientific evidence that the universe is expanding.

Everyone has heard the increased pitch of an approaching police siren and the sharp decrease in pitch as the siren passes by and recedes. The effect arises because the sound waves arrive at the listener's ear closer together as the source approaches, and further apart as it recedes.
Light behaves like a wave, so light from a luminous object undergoes a Doppler-like shift if the source is moving relative to us. Ever since 1929, when Edwin Hubble discovered that the Universe is expanding, we have known that most other galaxies are moving away from us. Light from these galaxies is shifted to longer (and this means redder) wavelengths - in other words, it is 'red-shifted'.
Since light travels at such a great speed relative to everyday phenomena (a million times faster than sound) we do not experience this red shift in our daily lives.
The red shift of a distant galaxy or quasar is easily measured by comparing its spectrum with a reference laboratory spectrum. Atomic emission and absorption lines occur at well-known wavelengths. By measuring the location of these lines in astronomical spectra, astronomers can determine the red shift ofthe receding sources.
However, to be accurate, the red shifts observed in distant objects are not exactly due to the Doppler phenomenon, but are rather a result of the expansion of the Universe.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/What_is_red_shift#:~:text='Red%20shift'%20is%20a%20key,moves%20relative%20to%20an%20observer.
 
Having watched similar videos and documentary's it makes sense me the universe will eventually use up all its energy.

Small, long lasting suns will be the last to go, our medium sized sun will begin to burn out in 7 or 8 billion years

As the universe balloons out to infinity distances between objects will grow.

It will at some point in time become a cold, dark universe with a temp of absolute zero, all energy tied up in rocks with no life
 
The asteroid 66 million years caused mammals and eventually us to exist.

It was fluke incident, nothing more.

Your here because of chaos and luck.
 
DrewPaul said:
How is it possible the cause of the universe was neither intended or unintended or was both? Unless you can prove otherwise I'll assume one of them is true and therefore possible.
Click to expand...
Philosophical mumbo jumbo.
 
There is a saying that goes: "The thought that a 'God' created the entire universe is mind-boggling and the thought that the universe came from nothing is mind-boggling."

Each premise is beyond the capacity of the human brain to explain and understand, but when you think of the response you get from people that are fervent bible believers which usually goes: "If there is no 'God' how did we all get here?", that is a substitution argument based on a false premise. Even though they themselves cannot explain how and why their bible god came into being they insist that a nonbeliever of their STORY do what they themselves cannot do. Some will say that God always was a yet cannot begin to explain how that comes about. So, the declarative statement amounts to just a claim. Yet, if you or I were to say that the universe always was here, they will insist on chapter and verse and the science of how you conclude that without evidence and blah blah blah.

What it always, always boils down to in debating with a Christian is the flinging at you of bible verses. When I debated for many decades at CARM, the unwritten rules were that you had to argue over bible verses, and not only that, you had to agree that the verse itself was "true". The discussion never was about the logic of a human rising from the dead, whether or not someone that knows he is a "God" could sacrifice in the first place since he knew he was indestructible, why the three accounts of the missing body in the tomb, why there were no independent reports from the townspeople of dead people rising f=rom their graves when Jesus resurrected, how a snake could talk, etc., etc. Nope. They would get upset when you refused to play the game they wanted you to,m which was to accept what is written in the bible as fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…