• 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!

Atheist Asks A Christian, Kent Hovind Where Did God Come From??

Perhaps the same place(s) God (allegedly) came from. Where did God originate from?

If everything existing had an intelligent creator then what created that (allegedly existing) intelligent creator?
If you are following the thread, then you realize you are asking a question i have answered several times.
 
If you are following the thread, then you realize you are asking a question i have answered several times.
2c3f6720bf829a620ca6457e57006e16.jpg
 
The God that causes you to spend so much of your time here on this site trying to attack peoples belief in His existence...the God that has rules, roles and standards that you hate.

Do you have any evidence for “his” existence?
 
Do you have any evidence for “his” existence?
Here's a clue for you...even a blind/deaf person has evidence if they acknowledge it...
 
Where did all the matter in the known cosmos come from? What was the energy source that initiated the big bang? Where did it originate from.
We don't know but there are a number of viable ideas and hypotheses, such as a singularity or several ideas coming from quantum mechanics (which is well outside my ability to understand). The key point is that all of those ideas are being tested and assessed against objective evidence and where the evidence contradicts any aspect, it is reassessed and potentially changed or even dropped as a result. That is not faith.

With faith, if evidence is presented to challenges or contradicts your beliefs, the evidence is attacked or dismissed. The concept of changing or dropping the ideas is rarely if ever considered. That is the difference.

You're perfectly free not to believe the Big Bang Theory is valid, though you may well be asked to explain why. Nobody has ever been criminalised, killed or threatened with a terrible afterlife for believing the "wrong" universal origin theory.
 
I think there is a tremendous amount to be learned from the concept of intelligent design
Like what?

We walked on the moon. We have a helicopter on Mars. We have a satellite that’s now left our solar system and it’s still working.

We have a telescope in space that can see things never before known to man.


We fully understand how to design intelligently.

What could be “learned” from accepting the concept that a supernatural entity can just poof shit into existence?

Technically there’s millions that believe that. What have they taught us? You know, other than the “fact” that being gay will doom your eternity to pain a torture.
 
Like what?

We walked on the moon. We have a helicopter on Mars. We have a satellite that’s now left our solar system and it’s still working.

We have a telescope in space that can see things never before known to man.


We fully understand how to design intelligently.

What could be “learned” from accepting the concept that a supernatural entity can just poof shit into existence?

Technically there’s millions that believe that. What have they taught us? You know, other than the “fact” that being gay will doom your eternity to pain a torture.
See? You cant let your hatred and bigotry get out of your way. Your pretense of concern over intellectual discourse is laughably tragic.
 
Why do you always deflect with the dumbest bullshit?
I'm not deflecting anything. Your posts seethe hatred and bigotry. A discussion on the value of what 'design' of the cosmos might look ike...the science, values, formulas, measures, compounds...etc...degrades into "What could be “learned” from accepting the concept that a supernatural entity can just poof shit into existence?"

And then you have the nerve to talk about "the dumbest bullshit"?

:ROFLMAO:

Its ever and always with you.
 
I'm not deflecting anything. Your posts seethe hatred and bigotry. A discussion on the value of what 'design' of the cosmos might look ike...the science, values, formulas, measures, compounds...etc...degrades into "What could be “learned” from accepting the concept that a supernatural entity can just poof shit into existence?"

And then you have the nerve to talk about "the dumbest bullshit"?

:ROFLMAO:

Its ever and always with you.
You're deflecting and avoiding questions. That's quite disingenuous.
 
Irony is funny because it’s irony.
Except there is no irony here. I have attempted )(still try) to have civil discussions with you...and you are incapable because at your core you dont WANT a civil discussion. For you this isnt about a civil discussion...its all about attacking religious people and their faith...primarily because the values and standards religious people maintain are in opposition to you and yours.
 
Except there is no irony here. I have attempted )(still try) to have civil discussions with you...and you are incapable because at your core you dont WANT a civil discussion. For you this isnt about a civil discussion...its all about attacking religious people and their faith...primarily because the values and standards religious people maintain are in opposition to you and yours.
Projection.
 
There ya go.
Do you have any response to any more than the three words you cut out of my reply? The point remains that nobody has faith in (any form of) the Big Bang Theory and so that is not comparable or equitable to faith in any particular god.

If someone asked me if the Big Bang happened, I wouldn't say "Yes".
If someone asked you if God exists, you would say "Yes".
 
Do you have any response to any more than the three words you cut out of my reply? The point remains that nobody has faith in (any form of) the Big Bang Theory and so that is not comparable or equitable to faith in any particular god.

If someone asked me if the Big Bang happened, I wouldn't say "Yes".
If someone asked you if God exists, you would say "Yes".
And you would say yes, based on faith. You LITERALLY believe a theory predicated on an answer
with no measurable foundation.

Me too.

So...no...I'd say the 3 words summed us both up nicely.
 
And you would say yes, based on faith. You LITERALLY believe a theory predicated on an answer
I literally didn't say "Yes" though. I said "We don't know" and went on to explain how there are a range of ideas and hypotheses which can be supported by evidence but aren't definitive. The key thing is that if new evidence comes to light, those ideas and hypotheses will be adjusted or replaced to account for that evidence. The Big Bang Theory wasn't always a leading hypothesis for the origin of the universe, it was only developed based on the observed evidence. That is the exact opposite of faith.
 
Except there is no irony here. I have attempted )(still try) to have civil discussions with you
Stop the bullshit. You pull the same dumb crap in these threads all the time.
You immediately go with an attack against me, just like this:
Your posts seethe hatred and bigotry.

then try to claim some idiocy like you've got the high-road to the discussion, and it's everyone else who is being hateful.

Which is totally ironic seeing as how the entire body of DP knows for a fact you are the one who "seethes" more than anyone else here.
 
I literally didn't say "Yes" though. I said "We don't know" and went on to explain how there are a range of ideas and hypotheses which can be supported by evidence but aren't definitive. The key thing is that if new evidence comes to light, those ideas and hypotheses will be adjusted or replaced to account for that evidence. The Big Bang Theory wasn't always a leading hypothesis for the origin of the universe, it was only developed based on the observed evidence. That is the exact opposite of faith.
Mea culpa...I misread your comment. You WOULDNT say yes.

Point STILL remains the same. The "leading hypothesis for the origin of the universe" still REQUIRES that it is taken as a given that all the materials existed. The "leading hypothesis for the origin of the universe" (which some people cite as if it were gospel) still has the same answer as the origin of God question.

We dont know.

Which is what i have maintained all along.
 
Stop the bullshit. You pull the same dumb crap in these threads all the time.
You immediately go with an attack against me, just like this:


then try to claim some idiocy like you've got the high-road to the discussion, and it's everyone else who is being hateful.

Which is totally ironic seeing as how the entire body of DP knows for a fact you are the one who "seethes" more than anyone else here.
🤣

Thats not an attack...its an expression of fact. It is PRECISELY what you do in every anti-religious thread you create...which is...what on average would you say...2 or 3 times a week? It is your foundation and motivation...and we both know it so why are you pretending to be butthurt about it? I have always TRIED to be sincere in my answers to your comments...to engage. But thats not what you want.

Ah yes...the leftists. Thats another irony. I engage in conversation with MANY people. When people are douchebags, I tend to give back in kind. Its a particular weakness of mine. And while I can recognize my mortal failing, the 'ironic' part is that it is invariably the leftists that I respond to....the ones that run around posting the constant snotty one line personal comments...that are the ones that like to talk about how I 'seethe'.

I respond...and that hurts their feelings.

Thats not what has happened here. I have tried...still do...to engage you on the topic. But please dont pretend YOUR motives are driven by anything BUT your hatred and bigotry towards Christians.
 
Kinda puts it all in perspective...


Back in the day when Isrial was just thinking up YAWH, YAWH started out as a storm god who received Isrial as an inheritance from a higher god. YAWH (who also had a wife btw) only had dominion over Isrial and you had to physically be inside Isreals geographical borders in order to worship YAWH. Isrial was already worshiping Baal, the resident storm god, so it was old-storm-god vs new-storm-god and that's why Moses had a fit when he came down from the mountain with the ten commandments to find Isrial worshiping Baal with the golden calf.

The point is that it's all made up and nobody actually knows wtf is going on with our universe. Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter, none of us actually know and we're all going to find out the truth when we die, so why fuss about it.
 
Point STILL remains the same. The "leading hypothesis for the origin of the universe" still REQUIRES that it is taken as a given that all the materials existed. The "leading hypothesis for the origin of the universe" (which some people cite as if it were gospel) still has the same answer as the origin of God question.
All scientific hypotheses and theories are based on structured assumptions for some starting point or grounding. Otherwise, we'd have to go back to the origins of the universe for everything. That said, there are aspects of the field which includes ideas and hypotheses about what the nature of that starting point could have been. It certainly doesn't just ignore or dismiss that part of the question.

We dont know.

Which is what i have maintained all along.
Yes, you keep repeating that despite the fact I have repeatedly explained why that is not the be-all and end-all (you know, all the parts of my earlier post that you ignored to focus on just the first three words?).

The various scientific ideas about the origins of the universe (including but certainly not exclusively, entirely or definitively The Big Bang Theory) are based on starting from the "We don't know" and trying to work it out with evidence and logic. The faith option is starting with the "We don't know" and just coming up with a definitive answer for all time regardless of, even in spite of, any actual evidence. The two approaches are still not equitable.
 
Kinda puts it all in perspective...


That's easy. From the minds of people (most likely mainly men) trying to make sense of the world around them with no scientific foundation to assist,
 
All scientific hypotheses and theories are based on structured assumptions for some starting point or grounding. Otherwise, we'd have to go back to the origins of the universe for everything. That said, there are aspects of the field which includes ideas and hypotheses about what the nature of that starting point could have been. It certainly doesn't just ignore or dismiss that part of the question.

Yes, you keep repeating that despite the fact I have repeatedly explained why that is not the be-all and end-all (you know, all the parts of my earlier post that you ignored to focus on just the first three words?).

The various scientific ideas about the origins of the universe (including but certainly not exclusively, entirely or definitively The Big Bang Theory) are based on starting from the "We don't know" and trying to work it out with evidence and logic. The faith option is starting with the "We don't know" and just coming up with a definitive answer for all time regardless of, even in spite of, any actual evidence. The two approaches are still not equitable.
For some reason, anti-religious people really really really really dont like acknowledging the fact that their positions are predicated on faith. Accept on faith that all the stuff was just 'there'....now what....

Its OK. Really. I get it.
 
Back
Top Bottom