Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.

[daddy8ball]

One this is for sure:

Given the mental caliber of GetBig posters, this pesky God shit will be solved once and for all and humanity will be grateful!

[che]

One this is for sure:

Given the mental caliber of GetBig posters, this pesky God shit will be solved once and for all and humanity will be grateful!

''Maybe God didnt always exist. I actually think that he created himself. which implies that there was a period of non-existence, and then god created himself... got lonely, and created existence.''

                                                                                            TBOMBZ

[Radical Plato]

''Maybe God didnt always exist. I actually think that he created himself. which implies that there was a period of non-existence, and then god created himself... got lonely, and created existence.''

                                                                                            TBOMBZ

Well if thats possible, maybe he fucked off again rooting some hookers in a far off Galaxy Smoking some A Grade Cannabis never to be heard off again. Just a thought. Thats what I'd do anyway given un-natural powers.

[avxo]

if something is supernatural it doesnt have to be logical, jackass.  

It also isn't scientific  

god is, and this is pretty much universally accepted by all who believe, incomprehensible. trying to define god, outside of "the creator", is a fruitless endeavor.  god may or may not exist. but if god does exist, god is the supernatural creator of all things and you can  not understand his existence. by definition anytihng supernatural is going to be incomprehensible to those of us in the natural world.

LOL... THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS! You start out by saying "god is incomprehensible" but you immediately proceed to provide at least two characteristics: he is supernatural and he is the creator of all things. You then repeat that he's incomprehensible. Great...

If he's incomprehensible, how do all those who believe come to know all this stuff about god? And how do they distinguish what's an attribute of their incomprehensible god and what isn't?

your being extremely obtuse.

Because I refuse to fall for the trap of debating against something undefined? If you think the definition is clear, then provide it. And no, "incomprehensible" won't cut it.

[RadOncDoc]

That's not the same thing at all. The fact is that the supernatural is beyond the realm of science. If Creationism involves a supernatural creator -- as it does -- it's outside the realm of science. And if Intelligent design claims that an intelligent designer is a necessary prerequisite and that what we observe cannot simply have evolved, then, it's legitimate to ask how ID explains the existence of the intelligent designer himself. The answer ends up being that ID is either inconsistent or unscientific. It's simple logic. No "clever definitions" or cheap parlor tricks.

Please define supernatural. Evolution demands eternal something...I find that just as implausible and "supernatural" as positing a deity. Just as you ask me where God came from, I could simply ask you: where did all this matter come from? I frankly think something coming from nothing (which is what you are suggesting) is just as supernatural as a deity. So again, let's get back to the science. Really disappointing that the only arguments levied against creation science are metaphysical. Ya'll sound like the very creation scientists you constantly disparage.

[daddy8ball]

A humble and simple request:

To all those who deny God...

just PROVE it and go down in history as the most famous human to ever walk the planet. Prolly make billions too.

Not too much to ask. We have some strong contenders here on Getbig.

Just do that simple thing.

[Radical Plato]

About the best an Intelligent person could say is that God could be an option. But thats it, to say he exists or doesnt cannot be known.
but deep deep deep deep down everyone knows THERE IS NO GoD[/size]

[tbombz]

It also isn't scientific  


LOL... THAT'S FUCKING HILARIOUS! You start out by saying "god is incomprehensible" but you immediately proceed to provide at least two characteristics: he is supernatural and he is the creator of all things. You then repeat that he's incomprehensible. Great...

If he's incomprehensible, how do all those who believe come to know all this stuff about god? And how do they distinguish what's an attribute of their incomprehensible god and what isn't?


Because I refuse to fall for the trap of debating against something undefined? If you think the definition is clear, then provide it. And no, "incomprehensible" won't cut it.

you already admitted to understanding that god, if he exists, would be a supernatural entity. by definition that is the case. and by definition something SUPERNATURAL is incomprehensible.  when talking about "god" one doesnt need to clarify how they come to the idea that god is the creator, because the term god itself is a manifestation of the adjective 'creator" in its purest form.  "creator", "god", "supernatural". no proof for any of those things. but they are words nonetheless, and for a word to exist there must be some operative definition. the deifition for those terms are clear and concise. if you cant get past this very simple point your either extremely obtuse or allowing your self to inhibit the processing of new information that contradicts your old beliefs.  

there are only two options for the universe. caused, or uncaused. no others. in one scenario a creator, god, is required. in the other scenario there is no answer for the origins of existence, existence just is. so, either god is the answer, or there is no answer.  very, very simple.

[CigaretteMan]

 Yes, it is a problem of semantics, the nature of logic and what exactly is the relation between concepts and reality. Maybe the deeper we dig into the intrinsic properties of reality, the closer and closer it becomes to abstract concepts until at the end we find that the ultimate substrate of reality has no property besides being a pure concept(a thought). So reality is at least partially perceptual. But the reason why I brought up time is because many people assume that something must explain the first cause of the Universe. The folly in this reasoning is that if something must explain the first cause, then it is not the first cause because the first cause by definition has no cause. Time is a function of causality which is a function of matter(something). Time originates with the first cause and the first cause does not require time to exist because it does not require any cause(what creates time). This is an axiomatic and tautological truths...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  another fantastic post....wow what are ya man? i just dont read stuff like this on internet forums..

[che]

there are only two options for the universe. caused, or uncaused. no others. in one scenario a creator, god, is required. in the other scenario there is no answer for the origins of existence, existence just is. so, either god is the answer, or there is no answer.  very, very simple.

Ask him ,you talk to him every night.

[Radical Plato]

To be an Atheist requires a tremendous amount of faith, FAITH that this is the only life we get. So dont waste it on Make Believe. Forget God an go and get laid Get Biggers.  You know you want too. There is a hooker out there somewhere with a Crucifix Necklace and a tattoo of Jesus on her lowerback with a Getbiggers name on her.

[avxo]

Please define supernatural.

Everything that is outside the realm of the laws of nature.

Evolution demands eternal something...

No it doesn't. Where does it demand such a thing?

I find that just as implausible and "supernatural" as positing a deity. Just as you ask me where God came from, I could simply ask you: where did all this matter come from? I frankly think something coming from nothing (which is what you are suggesting) is just as supernatural as a deity. So again, let's get back to the science. Really disappointing that the only arguments levied against creation science are metaphysical. Ya'll sound like the very creation scientists you constantly disparage.

Putting words in my mouth won't help you win any arguments.  I never said "something came from nothing" and that's a very common misconception of people who don't have a background in science, and at least a rudimentary understanding of advanced and theoretical physics.

My answer to your question about 'where all this matter comes from' would be exceedingly long to type here, but feel free to visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_Bang_theory for a decent (and pretty accessible) explanation of how science understands the formation of the Universe. The theory is certainly not complete and there are questions it cannot answer (such as the baryonic asymmetry we observe) but that's how science is.

As to what came "before" the Big Bang, I will again point out that the question is meaningless, because it assumes temporal causality divorced from time.

[tbombz]

^^^^    avxo  = "existence doesnt demand eternity"... "something didnt come from nothing"..           you dont see how these two ideas are contradictory by their very definitions ?         

atheists are the smartest bunch of idiots on the planet 

[Radical Plato]

You know you want to believe it, just try it.  Atheism is great, it frees you from morbid guilt, delusional thinking and enhances your sex life by 1000 %.  Come to the Dark Side my God Botherers.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[Radical Plato]

atheists are the smartest bunch of idiots on the planet  

God Botherers are just idiots who are holding up the progress of the planet.  The problem is the Church is so full Of Sexual Repression that these Freaks are Rooting like rabbits out of guilt and shame.  Atheists need to lessen the guilt and shame of God Botherers first to slow down their rampant closet sex addictions that lead to their mass breeding cycles. Maybe then we can talk sense to them.  I am sure there is an atheist pharmacist somewhere working on an anti God pill, as God only lives in the mind of the delusional who dont like to face reality.

[apply85]

by their own definitions things that are supernatural do not exist

[avxo]

you already admitted to understanding that god, if he exists, would be a supernatural entity. by definition that is the case. and by definition something SUPERNATURAL is incomprehensible.  when talking about "god" one doesnt need to clarify how they come to the idea that god is the creator, because the term god itself is a manifestation of the adjective 'creator" in its purest form.  "creator", "god", "supernatural". no proof for any of those things. but they are words nonetheless, and for a word to exist there must be some operative definition. the deifition for those terms are clear and concise. if you cant get past this very simple point your either extremely obtuse or allowing your self to inhibit the processing of new information that contradicts your old beliefs.  

there are only two options for the universe. caused, or uncaused. no others. in one scenario a creator, god, is required. in the other scenario there is no answer for the origins of existence, existence just is. so, either god is the answer, or there is no answer.  very, very simple.

You say that for a word to exist there must be some operative definition. What's the operative definition of "najuglabublabuabumaguhatsukasa"? It's a word. I just typed it. Tnere it is, on your screen in bold black letters. It exists. What's the operative definition? You claim that a word that exists must have an operative definition. So provide it.

As to the other nonsense about 'god' being interchangeable with 'creator': you keep making assertions about this supernatural entity that you claim may exist and that you concede is incomprehensible. How did you come to know that 'god' is a creator? Is it your contention that if 'god' exists, then he must have necessarily created the universe? How do you know that?

You assert that there are only two options for the Universe. Caused and uncaused. What leads you to that conclusion? Causality is a property of our Universe. What makes you think that causal relationships exists separate from the Universe?

[avxo]

^^^^    avxo  = "existence doesnt demand eternity"... "something didnt come from nothing"..           you dont see how these two ideas are contradictory by their very definitions ?         

atheists are the smartest bunch of idiots on the planet 

I see nothing contradictory in the statement "existence doesn't demand eternity." Existence, as we understand it, is something finite. We are born then we die. We exist for a finite period of time. The Universe, on the other hand, can't be said to "exist" in the same sense because time is a property of the Universe. In that sense the Universe is eternal. But that doesn't necessarily preclude a beginning or an end vis-a-vis the Big Bang.

And as for "something didn't come from nothing" that really depends on what you mean. Quantum vacuum fluctuations, for example, can cause virtual particles to come into existence: TADA! Something from nothing.

The problem that you have with that statement though is much simpler: you hear people say "nothing was before the Big Bang" and you get confused. You look in front of you, and you see a computer screen. You look to your left and you see a plate of Totino's pizza pockets. And you wonder "well shit. There's stuff right here!" The answer is that you misunderstand what is meant because you don't have a background in theoretical physics. Read up on the Big Bang article at wikipedia. Eat your pizza pockets while doing it. You'll probably get a little better understanding.

[tbombz]

You say that for a word to exist there must be some operative definition. What's the operative definition of "najuglabublabuabumaguhatsukasa"? It's a word. I just typed it. Tnere it is, on your screen in bold black letters. It exists. What's the operative definition? You claim that a word that exists must have an operative definition. So provide it.

As to the other nonsense about 'god' being interchangeable with 'creator': you keep making assertions about this supernatural entity that you claim may exist and that you concede is incomprehensible. How did you come to know that 'god' is a creator? Is it your contention that if 'god' exists, then he must have necessarily created the universe? How do you know that?

You assert that there are only two options for the Universe. Caused and uncaused. What leads you to that conclusion? Causality is a property of our Universe. What makes you think that causal relationships exists separate from the Universe?

combining letters does not create a word. a word, by definition, is a sound, a pattern of letters, that correlates with an idea and is known and used by a group of people. if that jumble of letters yyou typed had a meaning and was used by people, then it would be a word.

again, your being very obtuse.


how do i know god would be the creator if he exists? BECAUSE THE WORD "GOD" MEANS "THE CREATOR".

again, your being very obtuse.


how do i know there are only two options for the universe, caused or uncaused ?  please, give me an example of another option.   (heres a hint, something can not be "partially caused", it either is or it isnt.)


again, your being very obtuse.

[tbombz]

I see nothing contradictory in the statement "existence doesn't demand eternity." Existence, as we understand it, is something finite. We are born then we die. We exist for a finite period of time. The Universe, on the other hand, can't be said to "exist" in the same sense because time is a property of the Universe. In that sense the Universe is eternal. But that doesn't necessarily preclude a beginning or an end vis-a-vis the Big Bang.

And as for "something didn't come from nothing" that really depends on what you mean. Quantum vacuum fluctuations, for example, can cause virtual particles to come into existence: TADA! Something from nothing.

The problem that you have with that statement though is much simpler: you hear people say "nothing was before the Big Bang" and you get confused. You look in front of you, and you see a computer screen. You look to your left and you see a plate of Totino's pizza pockets. And you wonder "well shit. There's stuff right here!" The answer is that you misunderstand what is meant because you don't have a background in theoretical physics. Read up on the Big Bang article at wikipedia. Eat your pizza pockets while doing it. You'll probably get a little better understanding.

if something came from nothing, then we could say the universe is not eternal. if something did not come from nothing, then we can say th euniverse is eternal. two options. only two.

[avxo]

if something came from nothing, then we could say the universe is not eternal. if something did not come from nothing, then we can say th euniverse is eternal. two options. only two.

The concept "eternal" doesn't apply to the Universe qua Universe because time is a property of the Universe itself. Eternal is a temporal concept that applies within the framework of spacetime.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

if something came from nothing, then we could say the universe is not eternal. if something did not come from nothing, then we can say th euniverse is eternal. two options. only two.

[SF1900]

That wont matter to theists. 

[tbombz]

The concept "eternal" doesn't apply to the Universe qua Universe because time is a property of the Universe itself. Eternal is a temporal concept that applies within the framework of spacetime.

now your trying to obfuscate. the universe either always existed, or it was created. is that better?  

[tbombz]

chime in with a sentence or two, or a paragraph or three if you have anything to say. im not watching an hour long video to hear the same bullshit im already refuting in this thread.

either there is no answer, the universe always existed. or the universe was created.  only two options.

you can start by addressing that. if you have nothing you think refutes that then i have no qualms with your ideas and your presence is not needed.